The Economic Impact of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the United States - Full Version by Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems Intl

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT

OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 2013 1

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................ 2

Oregon Detailed Economic Impact..............................32

Total Economic Impact of UAS Integration in the

Pennsylvania Detailed Economic Impact.....................32

United States (Table 1) ..................................................... 4

Rhode Island Detailed Economic Impact.....................32

Forecast............................................................................... 5

South Carolina Detailed Economic Impact..................32

Economic Impact Analysis............................................ 10

South Dakota Detailed Economic Impact....................33

Appendix A....................................................................... 21

Tennessee Detailed Economic Impact..........................33

Appendix B....................................................................... 22

Texas Detailed Economic Impact..................................33

Alabama Detailed Economic Impact............................ 23

Utah Detailed Economic Impact...................................33

Alaska Detailed Economic Impact................................ 23

Vermont Detailed Economic Impact............................34

Arizona Detailed Economic Impact............................. 23

Virginia Detailed Economic Impact..............................34

Arkansas Detailed Economic Impact........................... 23

Washington Detailed Economic Impact....................34

California Detailed Economic Impact.......................... 24

West Virginia Detailed Economic Impact....................34

Colorado Detailed Economic Impact.......................... 24

Wisconsin Detailed Economic Impact.........................35

Connecticut Detailed Economic Impact...................... 24

Wyoming Detailed Economic Impact...........................35

Delaware Detailed Economic Impact......................... 24

References......................................................................... 36

Florida Detailed Economic Impact............................. 25

AUVSI Fast Facts.............................................................. 38

Georgia Detailed Economic Impact............................ 25 Hawaii Detailed Economic Impact............................... 25 Idaho Detailed Economic Impact................................ 25 Illinois Detailed Economic Impact............................... 26 Indiana Detailed Economic Impact.............................. 26 Iowa Detailed Economic Impact.................................. 26 Kansas Detailed Economic Impact.............................. 26 Kentucky Detailed Economic Impact......................... 27 Louisiana Detailed Economic Impact........................ 27 Maine Detailed Economic Impact.............................. 27 Maryland Detailed Economic Impact.......................... 27 Massachusetts Detailed Economic Impact..................28 Michigan Detailed Economic Impact...........................28 Minnesota Detailed Economic Impact.......................28 Mississippi Detailed Economic Impact ........................28 Missouri Detailed Economic Impact............................29 Montana Detailed Economic Impact............................29 Nebraska Detailed Economic Impact............................29 Nevada Detailed Economic Impact..............................29 New Hampshire Detailed Economic Impact.............30 New Jersey Detailed Economic Impact.........................30 New Mexico Detailed Economic Impact ......................30 New York Detailed Economic Impact..........................30 North Carolina Detailed Economic Impact.................. 31 North Dakota Detailed Economic Impact.................. 31 Ohio Detailed Economic Impact..................................31 Oklahoma Detailed Economic Impact..........................31

About the Authors Darryl Jenkins, author of “The Handbook of Airline Economics,” is an airline analyst with more than 30 years of experience in the aviation industry. Jenkins also served as director of the Aviation Institute at George Washington University for more than 15 years. As an independent aviation consultant, Jenkins has worked for the majority of the world’s top 50 airlines. In addition, he has consulted for the FAA, DOT, NTSB and other U.S. government agencies as well as many foreign countries. Jenkins also is the author of several aviation books and is a regular commentator for major media including ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, FOX and major print publications. Jenkins was a member of the Executive Committee of the White House Conference on Aviation Safety and Security. Dr. Bijan Vasigh is professor of economics and finance in the Department of Business Administration at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida, and a managing director at Aviation Consulting Group LLC. Vasigh received a Ph.D. in economics from the State University of New York in 1984, and he has written and published many articles concerning the aviation industry. The articles have been published in numerous academic journals such as the “Handbook of Airline Economics,” “Journal of Economics and Finance,” “Journal of Transportation Management,” “Transportation Quarterly,” “Airport Business,” “Journal of Business and Economics” and “Journal of Travel Research.” He was a consultant with the International Civil Aviation Organization and provided assistance on the evolution of aeronautical charge structure for the Brazilian Institute of Civil Aviation. He is a member of the editorial board of “Journal of Air Transport Management,” the “Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics” and “Journal of Air Transportation World Wide.” He is currently a member of the international faculty at the IATA Learning Center, where he is faculty leader of the Airline Finance and Accounting Management division.

Executive Summary The purpose of this research is to document the economic benefits on prepared runways. Some argue the use of UAS in the future will to the United States (U.S.) once Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) be a more responsible approach to certain airspace operations from are integrated into in the National Airspace System (NAS). an environmental, ecological and human risk perspective. In 2012, the federal government tasked the Federal Aviation Ad- UAS are already being used in a variety of applications, and many ministration (FAA) to determine how to integrate UAS into the NAS. more areas will benefit by their use, such as1: In this research, we estimate the economic impact of this integration. • Wildfire mapping2; In the event that these regulations are delayed or not enacted, this • Agricultural monitoring; study also estimates the jobs and financial opportunity lost to the • Disaster management; economy because of this inaction. • Thermal infrared power line surveys; While there are multiple uses for UAS in the NAS, this research con- • Law enforcement; cludes that precision agriculture and public safety are the most prom- • Telecommunication; ising commercial and civil markets. These two markets are thought • Weather monitoring; to comprise approximately 90% of the known potential markets for • Aerial imaging/mapping; UAS. • Television news coverage, sporting events, moviemaking3; We conclude the following: • Environmental monitoring; 1. The economic impact of the integration of UAS into the NAS will • Oil and gas exploration; and total more than $13.6 billion (Table 19) in the first three years of in- • Freight transport. tegration and will grow sustainably for the foreseeable future, cumulating to more than $82.1 billion between 2015 and 2025 (Table 1); Applicable Markets 2. Integration into the NAS will create more than 34,000 manufac- There are a number of different markets in which UAS can be used. turing jobs (Table 18) and more than 70,000 new jobs in the first This research is concentrated on the two markets, commercial and three years (Table 19); civil, with the largest potential. A third category (Other) summarizes 3. By 2025, total job creation is estimated at 103,776 (Table 1); all other markets: 4. The manufacturing jobs created will be high paying ($40,000) and 1. Precision agriculture; require technical baccalaureate degrees; 2. Public safety; and 5. Tax revenue to the states will total more than $482 million in the 3. Other. first 11 years following integration (2015-2025); and Public safety officials include police 6. Every year that integration is delayed, officers and professional firefighters in the United States loses more than $10 the U.S., as well as a variety of profesWhile we project more than billion in potential economic impact. sional and volunteer emergency medical This translates to a loss of $27.6 million 100,000 new jobs by 2025, service providers who protect the public per day that UAS are not integrated from events that pose significant danger, states that create favorable into the NAS. including natural disasters, man-made

Utility of UAS

regulatory and business environments for the industry and the technology will likely siphon jobs away from states that do not.

The main inhibitor of U.S. commercial and civil development of the UAS is the lack of a regulatory structure. Because of current airspace restrictions, non-defense use of UAS has been extremely limited. However, the combination of greater flexibility, lower capital and lower operating costs could allow UAS to be a transformative technology in fields as diverse as urban infrastructure management, farming, and oil and gas exploration to name a few. Present-day UAS have longer operational duration and require less maintenance than earlier models. In addition, they can be operated remotely using more fuel efficient technologies. These aircraft can be deployed in a number of different terrains and may be less dependent Market Intel Group (MiG), November, 2010 Predators improve wildfire mapping: Tests under way to use unmanned aircraft for civilian purposes, Tribune Business News, August 26, 2007 3 Honeywell International Inc 2004-2012

disasters and crimes. Precision agriculture refers to two segments of the farm market: remote sensing and precision application. A variety of remote sensors are being used to scan plants for health problems, record growth rates and hydration, and locate disease outbreaks. Such sensors can be attached to ground vehicles, aerial vehicles and even aerospace satellites. Precision application, a practice especially useful for crop farmers and horticulturists, utilizes effective and efficient spray techniques to more selectively cover plants and fields. This allows farmers to provide only the needed pesticide or nutrient to each plant, reducing the total amount sprayed, and thus saving money and reducing environmental impacts. As listed above, a large number of other markets will also use UAS

1 2

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Executive Summary ... continued once the airspace is integrated. We believe the impact of these other markets will be at least the size of the impact from public safety use. With sensible regulations in place, we foresee few limitations to rapid growth in these industries. These products use off-the-shelf technology and thus impose few problems to rapidly ramping up production. The inputs (i.e., parts) to the UAS can be purchased from more than 100 different suppliers; therefore, prices will be stable and competitive. The inputs to the UAS can all be purchased within the U.S., although these products can be imported from any number of foreign countries without the need of an import license. UAS have a durable life span of approximately 11 years and are relatively easy to maintain. The manufacture of these products requires technical skills equivalent to a baccalaureate degree. Therefore, there will always be a plentiful market of job applicants willing to enter this market. In summary, there are no production problems on the horizon that will impact the manufacturing and output of this product. Most of the barriers of potential usage are governmental and regulatory. For this study, we assume necessary airspace integration in 2015, on par with current legislation. Covering and justifying the cost of UAS is straightforward. In the precision agriculture market, the average price of the UAS is a fraction of the cost of a manned aircraft, such as a helicopter or crop duster, without any of the safety hazards. For public safety, the price of the product is approximately the price of a police squad car equipped with standard gear. It is also operated at a fraction of the cost of a manned aircraft, such as a helicopter, reducing the strain on agency budgets as well as the risk of bodily harm to the users in many difficult and dangerous situations. Therefore, the cost-benefit ratios of using UAS can be easily understood.

Economic Benefit The economic benefits to the country are enormous and were estimated as follows. First, we forecast the number of sales in the three market categories. Next, we forecast the supplies needed to manufacture these products. Using estimated costs for labor, we forecast the number of direct jobs created. Using these factors, we forecast the tax revenue to the states. In addition to direct jobs created by the manufacturing process, there is an additional economic benefit. The new jobs created and the income generated will be spread to local communities. As new jobs are created, additional money is spent at the local level, creating additional demand for local services which, in turn, creates even more jobs (i.e., grocery clerks, barbers, school teachers, home builders, etc.). These indirect and induced jobs are forecast and included in the total jobs created.

TO READ THE FULL REPORT ONLINE, VISIT

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

The economic benefits to individual states will not be evenly distributed. The following 10 states are predicted to see the most gains in terms of job creation and additional revenue as production of UAS increase, totaling more than $82 billion in economic impact from 2015-2025 (Table 1). In rank order they are: 1) California 2) Washington 3) Texas 4) Florida 5) Arizona 6) Connecticut 7) Kansas 8) Virginia 9) New York 10) Pennsylvania It is important to note that the projections contained in this report are based on the current airspace activity and infrastructure in a given state. As a result, states with an already thriving aerospace industry are projected to reap the most economic gains. However, a variety of factorsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;state laws, tax incentives, regulations, the establishment of test sites and the adoption of UAS technology by end usersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;will ultimately determine where jobs flow. By 2025, we estimate more than 100,000 new jobs will be created nationally. For the purposes of this report, we base the 2025 state economic projections on the current aerospace employment in the states. We also presume that none of the states have enacted restrictive legislation or regulations that would limit the expansion of the technology. These landscapes will likely shift, however, as states work to attract UAS jobs in the years following integration. Future state laws and regulations could also cause some states to lose jobs while others stand to gain jobs. In conclusion, while we project more than 100,000 new jobs by 2025, states that create favorable regulatory and business environments for the industry and the technology will likely siphon jobs away from states that do not. The trend in total spending, total economic impact and total employment impact was investigated for 2015 through 2025. The total spending in UAS development and total economic and employment impacts are expected to increase significantly in the next five years. This study demonstrates the significant contribution of UAS development and integration in the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s airspace to the economic growth and job creation in the aerospace industry and to the social and economic progress of the citizens in the U.S. See Table 1 for the results of the total impact of UAS integration in the United States.

http://www.auvsi.org/econreport

Table 1: Total Economic Impact of UAS Integration in the United States 2015 - 2017

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Total

Economic Impact $(M)

2015-2025

Taxes ($M) Jobs Created

Economic Impact ($M)

Taxes ($M) Jobs Created

$294 $19 $561 $80 $2,390 $232 $538 $17 $632 $379 $32 $29 $204 $208 $159 $489 $89 $213 $107 $335 $386 $188 $142 $162 $260 $14 $25 $38 $85 $263 $101 $443 $153 $14 $359 $106 $81 $393 $42 $99 $9 $112 $1,087 $143 $36 $463 $1,312 $47 $88 $5

$2.43 $0.00 $2.59 $0.94 $13.64 $1.79 $4.32 $0.16 $0.00 $3.72 $0.39 $0.36 $1.71 $1.18 $0.92 $4.84 $0.90 $1.44 $1.26 $2.64 $3.36 $1.37 $1.68 $1.10 $1.73 $0.15 $0.22 $0.00 $0.00 $3.24 $0.73 $4.66 $1.79 $0.07 $2.43 $0.93 $0.41 $2.02 $0.38 $1.16 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.21 $0.47 $4.47 $0.00 $0.47 $0.96 $0.00

1,510 95 2,883 411 12,292 1,191 2,764 88 3,251 1,949 166 149 1,049 1,067 817 2,515 459 1,097 548 1,725 1,985 965 730 832 1,338 74 128 196 439 1,353 518 2,276 785 71 1,844 545 416 2,021 217 507 48 578 5,588 735 184 2,380 6,746 240 450 24

$1,765 $112 $3,371 $481 $14,372 $1,392 $3,232 $103 $3,801 $2,279 $194 $174 $1,226 $1,248 $956 $2,941 $537 $1,282 $641 $2,017 $2,321 $1,128 $853 $973 $1,565 $86 $149 $229 $514 $1,582 $606 $2,661 $918 $83 $2,156 $637 $486 $2,363 $253 $593 $56 $675 $6,533 $859 $215 $2,783 $7,888 $280 $527 $28

$14.60 $0.00 $15.55 $5.63 $82.03 $10.76 $25.97 $0.97 $0.00 $22.34 $2.35 $2.16 $10.30 $7.12 $5.53 $29.13 $5.41 $8.67 $7.56 $15.85 $20.22 $8.26 $10.08 $6.60 $10.37 $0.91 $1.30 $0.00 $0.00 $19.50 $4.41 $28.05 $10.75 $0.40 $14.60 $5.61 $2.47 $12.12 $2.28 $6.99 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7.26 $2.81 $26.86 $0.00 $2.83 $5.76 $0.00

2,231 141 4,260 608 18,161 1,760 4,084 131 4,803 2,880 245 220 1,549 1,577 1,208 3,716 678 1,620 810 2,549 2,933 1,426 1,078 1,230 1,978 109 189 290 649 1,999 765 3,363 1,160 105 2,725 805 614 2,986 320 749 71 853 8,256 1,085 271 3,517 9,967 354 665 36

$13,657

$80.22

70,240

$82,124

$482.39

103,776

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Forecast In this chapter, we describe the methodology for the forecasts we used as inputs to the economic benefits section. In accomplishing this task, we were fortunate to obtain and use comparable product sales from other countries. In making the forecasts, we relied on four different methods: 1) Comparable sales from other countries; 2) Survey results; 3) Land ratios; and 4) A literature search on rates of adoption of new technology. The four different methodologies yielded similar results and provide confidence in our final results. Throughout this study, we use the following terms. When we use the term output, we are referring to the UAS. The inputs to the UAS are the parts and labor that go into making these products. In turn, the parts that go into the inputs we refer to as derived demand. As part of this section, we provide a detailed discussion of the factors that may make our forecasts inaccurate and their potential impact. Our forecasts are for an 11-year period. That unit of measurement was chosen as that is the expected life of a UAS. We did not include maintenance, training or other revenue streams, which makes our overall estimates conservative. In addition, there are multiple options on sales including leasing the equipment and having third-party providers as an outsourced service, all of which add to our conservative estimates.

Sales in Foreign Countries

Other countries have already adopted UAS technology from a zero base (i.e., first year of adoption). By now, these technologies have been operational for more than two decades. The growth curve is found to be logistic with a rapid beginning and then a leveling off of the market (Figure 1). The issue is not whether these products will be adopted once the airspace is integrated, but at what rate(s). The experience in Japan started out at rates of growth in excess of 20% annually. This was from no unmanned vehicles in 1990 (i.e., the zero base), where neither the companies nor the consumers had previous experience with this technology (see Appendix A for detailed data).

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

As is readily apparent, the growth rates in the early years in Japan were very high. The question of interest is: How fast will growth occur in the U.S.? We chose a short time period for growth in the U.S. (doubling the first year, 50% growth the next year and thereafter a 5% growth rate). Our justification is as follows. First, there is considerable experience with these products. American farmers are not starting out from a zero-knowledge base as did Japan. Second, UAS are not sold in the U.S. domestic market only because FAA regulations prohibit them in the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s airspace. It is noted that the dampening of the Japanese growth curve happened within six years. The literature review found higher initial rates of product acceptance than the previous Japanese experience and lower leveling off of rates.

Adoption Rates of New Technology

There are many factors that influence the rate at which new technologies are adopted and diffused into a society. We found considerable literature on this topic. The conclusion from the brief search we conducted is that new technologies are either accepted or rejected quickly. There is already a trade association that is doing outreach to the primary targets and showing products in their trade show(s). Because there is previous experience in this field, we reject the notion that these products will not be adopted. However, it is suggested that a follow up to this study be conducted on adoption of new technology. There is considerable literature on this topic, which needs to be investigated, and will help develop further adoption strategies.

Methodology

We performed three separate forecasts for this study: 1) The estimated number of sales by state; 2) The estimated sales by state for the inputs to the final product; and 3) The estimated sales by state for the derived demand for the final products. To complete these forecasts, we developed a telephone survey and pilot-tested it on five participants to refine our survey questions. We next conducted 30 telephone interviews with industry experts. An industry expert was defined as a person with more than three years of practical and relevant experience. Each interview lasted about 30 minutes. The participants were guaranteed confidentiality so we cannot divulge the individual results. However, we were able to obtain a reasonable estimate on what the group as a whole felt was the size of the market and the cost structure. Because there was considerable variance in these estimates, we ignored the outliers and calculated the average cost structure. We estimate that approximately 60% of the overall cost of a UAS is parts with an average annual labor cost of $37,000. In this report, we use $40,000 and hold it at a constant cost, as we do with the parts numbers. Thus the results can be interpreted as constant dollars over the entire term, as we are not forecasting the inflation rate. As for profitability, we consider this a competitive industry with a normal rate of return.

We found that almost all respondents considered agriculture to be far and above the largest market given that the public safety market is limited by the number of first-response teams. We next looked at some simple ratios between UAS sales in Japan and the amount of arable farmland and imputed these ratios to the United States. The survey results indicated an agricultural market of approximately 150,000 unit sales per year at maturity (i.e., 2020), and the Japanese land ratio indicated a market size of 165,000 unit sales per year. For the purposes of this forecast, we used 100,000 unit sales per year as a conservative benchmark. See Figure 2 for total expected sales for 2015-2025. Actual sales could be a multiple of this estimate. As to the public safety market, the consensus was that the agriculture market will be at least 10 times the public safety market. Our follow-up task to the questionnaire was to find the number of firstresponse domestic teams and survey a small number of this group. We found their purchase issues to be minimal. They simply have a budget given to them by the local governmental unit that oversees them, and they work within it. Purchases of this size are not uncommon and public safety officials have all of the appearances of being early adopters, especially when safety is involved. During the survey interviews, we discovered that there were unlimited uses of UAS. For example, many respondents discussed the potential uses of UAS for real estate purposes or for examining oil pipelines. In the case of oil pipelines, the consensus of the experts was that the total annual sale was approximately 1,000 units. For real estate personnel, there was not a consensus. From the surveys and follow-up calls with other professionals, we estimate that the aggregate size for other sales was approximately 10% of the total. In reality, this figure is a lower boundary and should be interpreted as at least 10% of the total. Depending on the promotions to this segment, the final price and, most importantly, the federal regulations, this segment could be significantly larger. We estimate the lower boundary at 10% to be conservative.

In making the first round of forecasts, we tried several different methods but ultimately used a ratio of the number of direct aerospace and defense (A&D) industry employees in each state4 to the total number of direct A&D industry employees in the U.S. For example, Alabama has an estimated 23,090 direct A&D industry employees out of a total of 1,040,796 direct A&D employees in the U.S., or 2.22% of the total. So we took the total forecast of agriculture sales and multiplied by 2.22% for Alabama. See Table 2 for a complete list of states and their estimated manufacturing distribution. For the inputs, we find no constraints. There are plenty of manuTable 2: Estimated Manufacturing Distribution State

Manufacturing Distribution

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri

2.22% 0.15% 4.10% 0.61% 15.58% 1.77% 3.95% 0.13% 4.74% 2.83% 0.25% 0.22% 1.56% 1.59% 1.24% 3.54% 0.69% 1.65% 0.82% 2.53% 2.90% 1.44% 1.09% 1.25% 1.97%

State Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Manufacturing Distribution 0.11% 0.19% 0.30% 0.67% 1.99% 0.78% 3.30% 1.17% 0.11% 2.71% 0.81% 0.63% 3.00% 0.32% 0.76% 0.07% 0.81% 8.43% 1.10% 0.27% 3.55% 9.02% 0.36% 0.67% 0.04%

facturers of these parts; they are off-the-shelf and require little lead time. If one supply line goes down, there are multiple sources as backups. For the input forecast, we relied on the size of the aerospace labor force in each state as the metric. These numbers were obtained from a Deloitte report, commissioned by the Aerospace Industries Association, titled â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Aerospace and Defense Industry in the U.S.: A Financial and Economic Impact Studyâ&#x20AC;?5. In this forecast, we also looked at employment and taxes. Using the estimated labor dollar amount, we simply divided by 40,000 to find the number of jobs. Subtracting adjacent years yields the number of new jobs created. We used marginal state tax rates for the $40,000 income range, the assumption being that states will hold this rate constant over time. 4Deloitte, The Aerospace and Defense Industry in the U.S., A financial and economic impact study, March, 2012 5http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Industries/Aerospace-Defense-Manufacturing/ b4c8ae98118f5310VgnVCM3000001c56f00aRCRD.htm

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Forecast ... continued Necessary Conditions for the Forecasts

We now turn our attention to the conditions that must happen to validate this forecast: 1) The FAA must develop new regulations integrating UAS into the nation’s airspace; 2) Job growth distribution will mimic current aerospace manufacturing employment; 3) Creative destruction of existing jobs will have a net-zero impact; 4) There must be sufficient capital available to smaller manufacturing companies; 5) There must be financing available to UAS purchasers; 6) There must be insurance to cover liabilities; 7) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) needs to grow at least 3% annually over the designated time period; 8) The adoption rate(s) of this product in the U.S. will mimic Japan; and 9) Other unforeseen factors. The FAA Must Develop New Regulations Integrating UAS into the Nation’s Airspace Perhaps the single most important aspect of this forecast is that the FAA develops new guidelines allowing the integration of UAS in the nation’s airspace. In the absence of these guidelines, this report is simply the opportunity cost to the economy (new jobs, tax revenue, etc.) of a good idea that was hindered due to government interference or inaction. The FAA regulatory process, like all government entities, is slow and unpredictable. Job Growth Distribution Will Mimic Current Aerospace Manufacturing Employment The employment growth described in this report is all new employment, that is, jobs that do not currently exist. To project the statewide distribution of this employment, we used current aerospace manufacturing employment. However, there are many external factors that will affect this distribution that are impossible to predict in this report. These include, among other things, tax incentives, test sites and where new product development will actually occur. Creative Destruction of Existing Jobs Will Have a Net Zero Impact As UAS are introduced, some uses will replace existing capabilities, because there are efficiencies to be gained by using a UAS versus a traditional capability. As such, there is likely to be some job destruction from UAS. However, UAS will still need many similar capabilities to manned systems including training, maintenance and pilots. Any jobs that will be made immaterial by UAS will be transitioned to regular UAS operations. Because of the efficient use of UAS, there will be job creation in other areas. For instance, a farmer that saves money because he or she can use less pesticide since UAS can provide precision application will spend less money on pesticides and less on AUVSI Economic Report 2013

taxes due to pesticide use. That money back into the farmer’s pocket will provide economic impact to the U.S. that is not calculated in this report. To simplify, we generalize that there will be a net-zero impact of job creation in the application of these systems. A detailed analysis of this potential job creation is recommended for further research. There Must be Sufficient Capital Available to Smaller Manufacturing Companies One of the biggest problems with growing companies is their access to capital. As companies grow, their need for capital to buy new equipment, hire additional personnel, rent extra space and all of the other requirements are seldom met from working capital. The need for short-term working capital to accommodate growth can stymie any otherwise well thought out business plan. There Must be Financing Available to UAS Purchasers While the costs of these purchases are not the same as other farm equipment, they are seldom made as a cash purchase. Farm implements, such as tractors, are usually bought with company financing as they do not have serial numbers like cars. Banks may finance a tractor, but usually at a higher interest rate with the credit worthiness of the person as the collateral. This means that the industry or consortia of companies will need to be created for these purchases. There is probably less of a need for these arrangements for public safety, but they are only a shadow market compared to the agriculture market. It is clear that offering financing from a small company standpoint, outside of normal banking realms, is impossible and impractical at this time. This may be one of the most important factors outside of regulation reform to move this industry forward. Insurance to Cover Liabilities Must be Supplied One of the many great unknowns about the infant commercial UAS industry is its product liability exposure. Suppose a UAS used by a public safety agency malfunctions and crashes into a building. The assumption is that this event is covered by the local government’s umbrella insurance policy. What if this happens elsewhere? Perhaps the thrust of this argument is that the industry as a whole needs to start collecting relevant data in this realm. A Google search on this topic turned up little information, as governments use UAS mainly for wartime purposes. However, anything mechanical can malfunction, and a UAS is no exception. There will be issues of proper maintenance and liability, as there always are with aircraft of any type, in addition to workmen’s compensation and other potential problems. The long-term issue is the need for industry-wide data collection. GDP Needs to Grow at Least 3% Annually Over the Designated Time Period All studies of this nature require GDP assumptions. The typical scenario is that over a longer time period, the economy will grow at 3% per year. This is our assumption as well. Our forecast is that with new and improved products, they will grow at a slightly higher rate.

There may be several problems with this assumption. First, the current economic stagnation may persist. If so, this may favor sunken capital over new capital. Thus, we may see growth, but at a much later date, and significantly slower growth thereafter. If this happens, it has the potential to make our forecast inaccurate. The Adoption Rate(s) of this Product in the U.S. Will Mimic Japan Consumers in different counties or even different segments of the same country can react differently to the same product offering. Our assumption is that consumers in both countries will react similarly.

Discussion of Forecast Results

In this section, we will discuss the forecast results for the year 2015, which is the first forecast year. Table 3 shows the rank ordering of UAS manufacturing by state for agriculture uses in 2015, and Table 4 shows it for public safety. Other markets besides agriculture and public safety are estimated to have the same total economic impact as the public safety market, so in the following we only show the agriculture and public safety markets. Final economic impact calculations include agriculture, public safety and other markets (i.e., the public safety total economic impact multiplied by two to account for â&#x20AC;&#x153;other marketsâ&#x20AC;?).

Other Unforeseen Factors Any researcher knows that economic analysis and forecasts may not include hundreds of unforeseen events that impact economic estimates that were not taken into account. Any of these may materially affect our forecast.

Table 3: 2015 Total UAS Agriculture Sales Inputs State California Washington Texas Florida Arizona Connecticut Virginia Kansas New York Pennsylvania Massachusetts Georgia Ohio Maryland Alabama New Jersey Missouri Colorado Louisiana Indiana Illinois Michigan Mississippi Iowa North Carolina Utah Minnesota Maine Oklahoma Tennessee New Mexico South Carolina Kentucky Wisconsin New Hampshire Oregon Arkansas West Virginia Rhode Island Nevada Vermont Hawaii Idaho Nebraska Alaska Delaware Montana North Dakota South Dakota Wyoming

Labor $ 65,438,414 $ 37,902,240 $ 35,422,907 $ 19,927,882 $ 17,225,796 $ 16,575,698 $ 14,907,071 $ 14,873,981 $ 13,878,051 $ 12,598,434 $ 12,175,124 $ 11,882,156 $ 11,362,400 $ 10,645,314 $ 9,317,676 $ 8,353,625 $ 8,276,550 $ 7,416,208 $ 6,918,647 $ 6,686,613 $ 6,571,201 $ 6,060,323 $ 5,268,583 $ 5,193,121 $ 4,898,943 $ 4,636,240 $ 4,561,989 $ 3,444,594 $ 3,410,294 $ 3,390,117 $ 3,271,880 $ 3,185,523 $ 2,877,624 $ 2,825,568 $ 2,817,497 $ 2,632,274 $ 2,565,690 $ 1,504,791 $ 1,364,360 $ 1,255,001 $ 1,150,888 $ 1,041,126 $ 932,978 $ 807,478 $ 611,763 $ 557,285 $ 462,857 $ 453,576 $ 305,881 $ 155,765

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Parts 98,157,622 56,853,360 53,134,361 29,891,823 25,838,695 24,863,547 22,360,607 22,310,972 20,817,077 18,897,651 18,262,685 17,823,233 17,043,599 15,967,971 13,976,514 12,530,438 12,414,825 11,124,313 10,377,970 10,029,919 9,856,802 9,090,485 7,902,874 7,789,682 7,348,414 6,954,360 6,842,984 5,166,891 5,115,440 5,085,175 4,907,821 4,778,285 4,316,437 4,238,352 4,226,246 3,948,411 3,848,535 2,257,186 2,046,539 1,882,501 1,726,333 1,561,689 1,399,467 1,211,217 917,644 835,928 694,286 680,364 458,822 233,648

Taxes Employment $ 2,094,029 1,636 $ 948 $ 886 $ 498 $ 396,882 431 $ 663,028 414 $ 685,725 373 $ 743,699 372 $ 716,107 347 $ 309,418 315 $ 516,225 304 $ 570,343 297 $ 372,687 284 $ 404,522 266 $ 372,707 233 $ 497,876 209 $ 264,850 207 $ 274,696 185 $ 221,397 173 $ 181,876 167 $ 262,848 164 $ 210,899 152 $ 168,595 132 $ 141,253 130 $ 274,341 122 $ 185,450 116 $ 257,296 114 $ 192,897 86 $ 143,232 85 $ 85 $ 112,553 82 $ 178,389 80 $ 138,126 72 $ 146,930 71 $ 70 $ 63,175 66 $ 143,679 64 $ 72,230 38 $ 58,326 34 $ 31 $ 71,815 29 $ 59,969 26 $ 55,232 23 $ 33,074 20 $ 15 $ 24,743 14 $ 23,328 12 $ 10,233 11 $ 8 $ 4

Table 4: 2015 Total UAS Public Safety Sales Inputs State California Washington Texas Florida Arizona Connecticut Virginia Kansas New York Pennsylvania Massachusetts Georgia Ohio Maryland Alabama New Jersey Missouri Colorado Louisiana Indiana Illinois Michigan Mississippi Iowa North Carolina Utah Minnesota Maine Oklahoma Tennessee New Mexico South Carolina Kentucky Wisconsin New Hampshire Oregon Arkansas West Virginia Rhode Island Nevada Vermont Hawaii Idaho Nebraska Alaska Delaware Montana North Dakota South Dakota Wyoming

Labor $ 2,804,503 $ $ 1,624,382 $ $ 1,518,125 $ $ 854,052 $ $ 738,248 $ $ 710,387 $ $ 638,874 $ $ 637,456 $ $ 594,774 $ $ 539,933 $ $ 521,791 $ $ 509,235 $ $ 486,960 $ $ 456,228 $ $ 399,329 $ $ 358,013 $ $ 354,709 $ $ 317,838 $ $ 296,513 $ $ 286,569 $ $ 281,623 $ $ 259,728 $ $ 225,796 $ $ 222,562 $ $ 209,955 $ $ 198,696 $ $ 195,514 $ $ 147,625 $ $ 146,155 $ $ 145,291 $ $ 140,223 $ $ 136,522 $ $ 123,327 $ $ 121,096 $ $ 120,750 $ $ 112,812 $ $ 109,958 $ $ 64,491 $ $ 58,473 $ $ 53,786 $ $ 49,324 $ $ 44,620 $ $ 39,985 $ $ 34,606 $ $ 26,218 $ $ 23,884 $ $ 19,837 $ $ 19,439 $ $ 13,109 $ $ 6,676 $

Parts 4,206,755 2,436,573 2,277,187 1,281,078 1,107,373 1,065,581 958,312 956,184 892,160 809,899 782,687 763,853 730,440 684,342 598,993 537,019 532,064 476,756 444,770 429,854 422,434 389,592 338,695 333,844 314,932 298,044 293,271 221,438 219,233 217,936 210,335 204,784 184,990 181,644 181,125 169,218 164,937 96,737 87,709 80,679 73,986 66,930 59,977 51,909 39,328 35,825 29,755 29,158 19,664 10,013

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Taxes Employment 89,744 70 41 38 21 17,009 18 28,415 18 29,388 16 31,873 16 30,690 15 13,261 13 22,124 13 24,443 13 15,972 12 17,337 11 15,973 10 21,338 9 11,351 9 11,773 8 9,488 7 7,795 7 11,265 7 9,039 6 7,225 6 6,054 6 11,757 5 7,948 5 11,027 5 8,267 4 6,139 4 4 4,824 4 7,645 3 5,920 3 6,297 3 3 2,707 3 6,158 3 3,096 2 2,500 1 1 3,078 1 2,570 1 2,367 1 1,417 1 1 1,060 1 1,000 0 439 0 0 0

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Forecast ... continued The next series of tables we refer to as derived demand. The products that are used as inputs are manufactured by other companies, and the platform manufacturer must buy inputs for their finished

goods. Table 5 shows the results for the derived demand for inputs for agriculture and Table 6 for public safety.

Table 5: 2015 Total UAS Agriculture Derived Demand

Table 6: 2015 Total UAS Public Safety Derived Demand

State California Washington Texas Florida Arizona Connecticut Virginia Kansas New York Pennsylvania Massachusetts Georgia Ohio Maryland Alabama New Jersey Missouri Colorado Louisiana Indiana Illinois Michigan Mississippi Iowa North Carolina Utah Minnesota Maine Oklahoma Tennessee New Mexico South Carolina Kentucky Wisconsin New Hampshire Oregon Arkansas West Virginia Rhode Island Nevada Vermont Hawaii Idaho Nebraska Alaska Delaware Montana North Dakota South Dakota Wyoming

Labor $ 39,263,049 $ 22,741,344 $ 21,253,744 $ 11,956,729 $ 10,335,478 $ 9,945,419 $ 8,944,243 $ 8,924,389 $ 8,326,831 $ 7,559,061 $ 7,305,074 $ 7,129,293 $ 6,817,440 $ 6,387,188 $ 5,590,606 $ 5,012,175 $ 4,965,930 $ 4,449,725 $ 4,151,188 $ 4,011,968 $ 3,942,721 $ 3,636,194 $ 3,161,150 $ 3,115,873 $ 2,939,366 $ 2,781,744 $ 2,737,193 $ 2,066,757 $ 2,046,176 $ 2,034,070 $ 1,963,128 $ 1,911,314 $ 1,726,575 $ 1,695,341 $ 1,690,498 $ 1,579,364 $ 1,539,414 $ 902,874 $ 818,616 $ 753,001 $ 690,533 $ 624,676 $ 559,787 $ 484,487 $ 367,058 $ 334,371 $ 277,714 $ 272,146 $ 183,529 $ 93,459

Parts $ 58,894,573 $ 34,112,016 $ 31,880,616 $ 17,935,094 $ 15,503,217 $ 14,918,128 $ 13,416,364 $ 13,386,583 $ 12,490,246 $ 11,338,591 $ 10,957,611 $ 10,693,940 $ 10,226,160 $ 9,580,782 $ 8,385,908 $ 7,518,263 $ 7,448,895 $ 6,674,588 $ 6,226,782 $ 6,017,952 $ 5,914,081 $ 5,454,291 $ 4,741,725 $ 4,673,809 $ 4,409,048 $ 4,172,616 $ 4,105,790 $ 3,100,135 $ 3,069,264 $ 3,051,105 $ 2,944,692 $ 2,866,971 $ 2,589,862 $ 2,543,011 $ 2,535,748 $ 2,369,046 $ 2,309,121 $ 1,354,312 $ 1,227,924 $ 1,129,501 $ 1,035,800 $ 937,014 $ 839,680 $ 726,730 $ 550,586 $ 501,557 $ 416,572 $ 408,218 $ 275,293 $ 140,189

Taxes Employment $ 1,256,418 982 $ 569 $ 531 $ 299 $ 238,129 258 $ 397,817 249 $ 411,435 224 $ 446,219 223 $ 429,664 208 $ 185,651 189 $ 309,735 183 $ 342,206 178 $ 223,612 170 $ 242,713 160 $ 223,624 140 $ 298,726 125 $ 158,910 124 $ 164,818 111 $ 132,838 104 $ 109,126 100 $ 157,709 99 $ 126,540 91 $ 101,157 79 $ 84,752 78 $ 164,604 73 $ 111,270 70 $ 154,378 68 $ 115,738 52 $ 85,939 51 $ 51 $ 67,532 49 $ 107,034 48 $ 82,876 43 $ 88,158 42 $ 42 $ 37,905 39 $ 86,207 38 $ 43,338 23 $ 34,996 20 $ 19 $ 43,089 17 $ 35,981 16 $ 33,139 14 $ 19,845 12 $ 9 $ 14,846 8 $ 13,997 7 $ 6,140 7 $ 5 $ 2

Labor Parts Taxes Employment $ 1,682,702 $ 2,524,053 $ 53,846 42 $ 974,629 $ 1,461,944 $ 24 $ 910,875 $ 1,366,312 $ 23 $ 512,431 $ 768,647 $ 13 $ 442,949 $ 664,424 $ 10,206 11 $ 426,232 $ 639,348 $ 17,049 11 $ 383,325 $ 574,987 $ 17,633 10 $ 382,474 $ 573,711 $ 19,124 10 $ 356,864 $ 535,296 $ 18,414 9 $ 323,960 $ 485,940 $ 7,956 8 $ 313,075 $ 469,612 $ 13,274 8 $ 305,541 $ 458,312 $ 14,666 8 $ 292,176 $ 438,264 $ 9,583 7 $ 273,737 $ 410,605 $ 10,402 7 $ 239,597 $ 359,396 $ 9,584 6 $ 214,808 $ 322,211 $ 12,803 5 $ 212,826 $ 319,238 $ 6,810 5 $ 190,703 $ 286,054 $ 7,064 5 $ 177,908 $ 266,862 $ 5,693 4 $ 171,941 $ 257,912 $ 4,677 4 $ 168,974 $ 253,461 $ 6,759 4 $ 155,837 $ 233,755 $ 5,423 4 $ 135,478 $ 203,217 $ 4,335 3 $ 133,537 $ 200,306 $ 3,632 3 $ 125,973 $ 188,959 $ 7,054 3 $ 119,218 $ 178,826 $ 4,769 3 $ 117,308 $ 175,962 $ 6,616 3 $ 88,575 $ 132,863 $ 4,960 2 $ 87,693 $ 131,540 $ 3,683 2 $ 87,174 $ 130,762 $ 2 $ 84,134 $ 126,201 $ 2,894 2 $ 81,913 $ 122,870 $ 4,587 2 $ 73,996 $ 110,994 $ 3,552 2 $ 72,657 $ 108,986 $ 3,778 2 $ 72,450 $ 108,675 $ 2 $ 67,687 $ 101,531 $ 1,624 2 $ 65,975 $ 98,962 $ 3,695 2 $ 38,695 $ 58,042 $ 1,857 1 $ 35,084 $ 52,625 $ 1,500 1 $ 32,271 $ 48,407 $ 1 $ 29,594 $ 44,391 $ 1,847 1 $ 26,772 $ 40,158 $ 1,542 1 $ 23,991 $ 35,986 $ 1,420 1 $ 20,764 $ 31,146 $ 850 1 $ 15,731 $ 23,597 $ 0 $ 14,330 $ 21,495 $ 636 0 $ 11,902 $ 17,853 $ 600 0 $ 11,663 $ 17,495 $ 263 0 $ 7,866 $ 11,798 $ 0 $ 4,005 $ 6,008 $ 0

Forecast Conclusion In this section, we outline the assumptions and methodology used in making our forecasts. We drew on experience in Japan for comparable sales. Japan and the U.S. are both countries that readily adapt new technologies. We conclude the following: 1) If the FAA adopts new rules allowing for commercial use of UAS in the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s airspace, these products will be received rapidly into the marketplace; 2) The doubling rate can take place over either a three-year or six-year period. With the known rates of change in newer technologies, it is likely to be a three-year scenario given the fact that the potential marketplace is well aware of the product(s) unlike the introduction in Japan; and 3) The commercial agriculture market is by far the largest segment, dwarfing all others. AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Agriculture is an important product group. It has the potential for bringing a more reliable, cost-effective and safe method to domestic farmers for a variety of uses. In the event that a new set of regulations is not enacted and UAS are not integrated in the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS), this study estimates the lost jobs, lost tax revenue, and total economic loss to the states and nation. In addition, a delay in airspace integration will impact the U.S. in terms of a lag in technology development, manufacturing, job development and economic stimulus. With U.S. integration of UAS, more than 103,000 good paying jobs with benefits will be created. While this section shows the huge potential available to the nation, the exact calculations of these benefits are laid out in the next section, where we estimate the total economic impact of NAS integration.

Economic Impact Analysis Economic impact is based on the theory that a dollar flowing into a local economy from the outside is a benefit to the regional economy. The financial return for residents is in the form of new jobs, more earnings and new tax revenues that follow because of the initial development of a new business organization, and through new spending, in the municipality due to the operation of such a business or industry. These earnings, for instance, are generated for residents who are not directly associated with the business but who are the beneficiaries of the positive externalities that the business or industry can provide to communities. External benefits, or positive externalities, are those returns that are generated by a business but that are not captured by the business or local region. When the employees of a company spend money at local businesses, such as restaurants, gas stations and retail stores, their spending will benefit the owners and employees of those establishments, thereby creating a positive incremental impact. According to Davis (1990) an impact analysis is purposely designed to produce quantitative results of the effects that a certain segment of an industry has in the local economy. From an industry’s standpoint, these impact studies are based on the grounds of aggregate economic growth that may be derived from additional spending by the business. The range of the impact can be limited to the city, county, state or national levels. There are various methodologies that aid the economic valuation of specific organizations in their local economies. From the literature review, we concluded that Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) mostly relies on input-output economic models. Economists evaluate the impact that one sector has on another in terms of indirect and induced effects. The total economic impact is then the sum of the direct, indirect and induced effects.

Direct Impacts

Direct impacts are consequences of economic activities carried out by a company or organization in the economy. For example, institutions (public or private) have a direct impact on the local economy because of the activities conducted by the institution, management, employees, visitors and other related events. Employing labor, purchasing locally produced goods and services, and contracting for construction and capital improvements are all examples of activities that generate direct impacts. Some direct impacts, such as UAS, occur on site. Others, such as local production of goods and services for use at the institution, may occur off site. Expenditures by management, owners and visitors also generate direct impacts, but only those expenditures that lead to local business activity are relevant for a regional economic assessment. For this reason, it is important to distinguish between (a) the local value-added component of expenditures and (b) the regional import component. Thus, the manufacturers of UAS expenditures on utilities, supplies, professional services, meals and entertainment

generate significant economic benefits to the local and national economy. In most parts of the country, only the former component is relevant for the analysis. The following is a list of local value-added components: • Direct Spending Effects: Construction, maintenance, operations • Direct Business Cost Savings: Value of user benefits • Other Business Cost Savings: Logistics/inventory/ processing, scale economies • Regional Business Markets: Tourism, business relocation effects • Personal Cost Savings: Effect on disposable income The distinguishing feature of a direct impact is that it is an immediate consequence of the manufacturers of UAS’ economic activity.

Indirect Impacts

In addition to the direct effect of an economic activity, there are also indirect effects and induced effects. Indirect impacts derive from off-site economic activities that are attributable to the business activities of the manufacturers of UAS’ presence. For example, if we are looking at the job impacts of a new UAS being manufactured in Arizona, the direct effect is the number of new jobs created by the company itself. The indirect effect is the number of new jobs created at those firms that supply ancillary services for individuals who are employed at the UAS manufacturing facility and for customers of the firm. These can include, but are not limited to, hotels, restaurants and other businesses that may expand because of the presence of the UAS manufacturing facility. These suppliers and clients employ labor, purchase locally produced goods and services, and invest in capital expansion and improvements. Indirect impacts differ from direct impacts in that they originate entirely off site. Examples of indirect impacts would be: • Ancillary business expansion due to the UAS firm; • New capital investment in response to the UAS firm; and • Supplies and equipment that may be purchased because of the new business opportunities created by the UAS manufacturing facility.

Induced Impacts

Induced impacts are the result of spending of the wages and salaries of the direct and indirect employees on items such as food, housing, transportation and medical services. In other words, induced effects are the multiplier effects caused by successive rounds of spending throughout the economy as a result of the direct and indirect effects discussed above. For example, most of the take-home income earned by the manu10

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Economic Impact ... continued facturers of UAS employees is spent locally. Some of this spending becomes income to local businesses and their employees that provide services to the firm’s employees. Then part of these second-round incomes are also spent locally and thus become income to another set of individuals. As successive rounds of spending occur, additional income is created. Although some of the induced impacts occur locally, some are felt outside the region because of the regional import components of the goods and services purchased. More economically self-sufficient regions have higher multipliers than do regions that are more dependent on regional imports, because more of the spending and respending is accomplished in the area. Similarly, two or more counties considered together as one economic region would have a higher multiplier than would each individual county.

Total Impact

The total impact is the sum of direct impacts, indirect impacts and induced impacts. Total impact is expressed in economic output, earnings or jobs. Economic Impact Overview Business Operations Direct Spendings Amin. Expenses Other Direct Spendings

Customers Spending in the area

Direct Impacts

Direct Impacts Capital Programs

Indirect Impacts

Induced Impacts

Lodging Meals Recreation Car rentals Other

Re-spending of Earnings by Employees and Business

Total Impacts

Economists sometimes say that the direct economic impacts are “multiplied” through their indirect economic impacts. The ratio of the total (direct + indirect) economic impacts to the direct economic impacts is frequently referred to as the economic multiplier. The employment multiplier is the ratio of total employment to direct employment. The income multiplier is the ratio of total income to direct income created. Multipliers are not directly observed; rather, they are inferred from an economic model. The direct measure is generally the most accurate since it can be measured more easily, but it only represents a part of the impact, so other multipliers are added to get the total. However, it should be emphasized that the sum of the multipliers is very important since these are virtually the only tools available to researchers attempting to identify the overall impact of activity within a regional economy. Although a variety of methods can be used to generate economic multipliers, input-output (I-O) models are the most popular tool AUVSI Economic Report 2013

for such analysis and will be our focus. IMPLAN is a standard economic impact software package used to generate indirect, induced employment and sales indirect impacts estimates. IMPLAN utilizes Multiplier = user-supplied estimates of direct impacts the direct sales and/or employment and provides associated indirect and induced effects estimates. Direct effects are the changes in the industries to which a final demand change was made; indirect effects are the changes in interindustry purchases as the response to demand of the directly affected industry; and induced effects generally reflect changes in household spending resulting from activity generated by the direct and indirect effects (MIG, p.102).

Previous Economic Impact Studies

Conducting an economic impact study is important, because it is a useful tool to evaluate the economic impact of a business in a community in terms of jobs, income and tax revenue. Ten studies were selected from the literature to illustrate the different facets of economic impact and approaches used to assess impact. The purpose is to illustrate the range of values that may be achieved by different economic entities. The 10 examples are listed below: • Marshall County Hospital Impact in Marshall County, Kentucky; • Port of Baltimore impact in Maryland; • University of Florida in Florida; • Intel impact in Washington County; • Intel impact in Oregon; • Intel impact in Portland, Oregon Metro; • Boeing impact in Arizona; • All Acute Care Hospital Systems impact in New Hampshire; • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) impact in Florida; and • Nike impact in Oregon.

Methodology

The aircraft industry, undoubtedly, provides significant economic and social benefits for the regional, state and national economies. Most economic impact analyses utilize input-output models to provide detailed descriptions on how money invested in an economy travels and, through multiplier effects, creates additional employment and income. The basis of these input-output models is a summation of expenditures of the manufacturer (operations, capital and payroll) and the application of the multipliers to account for the interdependency of economic activity in a local economy (Siegfried et al., 2007). There are two well-known input-output programs: Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) and the more advanced Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) software. To more effectively use the multipliers for impact analysis, users must provide geographically and industrially detailed information

on the initial changes in output, earnings or employment that are associated with the project or program under study. RIMS II was developed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and is based on an accounting framework called an I-O table, which shows the industrial distribution of inputs purchased and outputs sold for each industry (BEA, 2010). There are two sources for the I-O table: BEA’s national I-O table, which shows the input and output structure of nearly 500 U.S. industries, and BEA’s regional economic accounts, which are used to adjust the national I-O table to show a region’s industrial structure and trading patterns. RIMS II has several advantages: • Multipliers can be estimated for any region and for any industry; • Low-cost estimates of regional multipliers because of data source accessibility are available; and • Expensive surveys and RIMS II-based estimates are similar in magnitude. IMPLAN is a more specialized software; it captures the actual dollar amounts of all business transactions taking place in a regional economy by utilizing Social Accounting Matrices (SAMs) accounts (IMPLAN, 2011). IMPLAN’s advantages are: • SAMs are a better measure of economic flow as they include “nonmarket” transactions (i.e., taxes and unemployment benefits); • Multiplier Models are built directly from the region-specific SAMs, which reflect the region’s unique structure; • Trade Flows Method tracks regional purchases by estimating trade flows, allowing for more accurate capturing of indirect effects; and • Data accessibility is cost effective and efficient. For this study, we have utilized IMPLAN’s input-output software to estimate the direct, indirect and induced effects of UAS integration in the NAS upon the local economy. The estimated economic impacts of this integration for each of the 50 states are provided in Appendix B.

Data

Results

For this study, we used IMPLAN’s input-output software to estimate the direct, indirect, induced and total effects of UAS integration on the economy of the state of Arizona. Because of the unique nature of manufacturing UAS and the specialized type of workers required, specific project payroll, parts, and taxes for agriculture and public safety were provided. Using the parts manufacturing distribution data in Table 7, we subtracted 4.10% (Arizona) from all values to get a distribution relative to Arizona. We then used this to modify the existing IMPLAN model for the rest of the states. Table 7 shows the adjustment factors to modify the multipliers for all states based on the Arizona multipliers that were derived from the IMPLAN’s input output software. Table 7: State Multiplier Adjustment Factors Based on State of Arizona's Multiplier Adjustment Adjustment State Abbreviation State Abbreviation Factors Factors Alabama AL -1.88% Montana MT -3.99% Alaska AK -3.96% Nebraska NE -3.91% Arizona AZ 0.00% Nevada NV -3.80% Arkansas AR -3.49% New Hampshire NH -3.43% California CA 11.48% New Jersey NJ -2.11% Colorado CO -2.34% New Mexico NM -3.32% Connecticut CT -0.15% New York NY -0.80% Delaware DE -3.97% North Carolina NC -2.93% Florida FL 0.64% North Dakota ND -3.99% Georgia GA -1.27% Ohio OH -1.40% Hawaii HI -3.85% Oklahoma OK -3.29% Idaho ID -3.88% Oregon OR -3.47% Illinois IL -2.54% Pennsylvania PA -1.10% Indiana IN -2.51% Rhode Island RI -3.78% Iowa IA -2.86% South Carolina SC -3.34% Kansas KS -0.56% South Dakota SD -4.03% Kentucky KY -3.42% Tennessee TN -3.29% Louisiana LA -2.45% Texas TX 4.33% Maine ME -3.28% Utah UT -3.00% Maryland MD -1.57% Vermont VT -3.83% Massachusetts MA -1.20% Virginia VA -0.55% Michigan MI -2.66% Washington WA 4.92% Minnesota MN -3.02% West Virginia WV -3.74% Mississippi MS -2.85% Wisconsin WI -3.43% Missouri MO -2.13% Wyoming WY -4.06%

The most common economic measures used in economic impact analysis are: • Employment [broken down to include full-time equivalents (FTEs)]; • Annual labor income; • Taxes; and • Total output or revenue. This analysis is based on the following data provided by our own forecasts for the 50 states from 2015 through 2025: 1) Total spending by agriculture and public safety in payroll, parts, and taxes; 2) Total direct employment by agriculture and public safety; and 3) State adjustment factors.

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Economic Impact ... Total Impacts Total Economic and Employment Impacts of Agriculture Spending

Total Economic and Employment Impacts of Public Safety and Other Spending

Table 8 presents the estimated total economic and employment impacts of agriculture spending in all 50 states in 2015. The total economic impact in all 50 states is $2,096.5 million with total job creation of 21,565. The state with the largest economic and employment impacts is California with a total economic impact of about $366.9 million and creation of 3,774 new jobs. Following California are Washington, Texas, Florida and Arizona. The state with the least economic and employment impacts is Wyoming with an estimated $723,647 and creation of seven new jobs. The average economic and employment impacts of agriculture spending per state are $41,929,742 and creation of 431 new jobs. The standard deviation of economic and employment impacts of agriculture spending are $61,565,404 and 633 new jobs. The large standard deviation indicates the wide variability (spread) of economic and employment impacts among states.

Table 9 presents the estimated total economic and employment impacts in 2015 of public safety spending in all 50 states. Since the total spending for â&#x20AC;&#x153;other marketsâ&#x20AC;? is considered equivalent to the public safety estimates, these data are not repeated. The total economic impact of the public safety market in all 50 states is approximately $89.8 million with creation of 924 new jobs. As with agriculture spending, the state with the largest economic and employment impacts is California with a total of more than $15.7 million and creation of 162 new jobs. This is followed in descending order by the states of Washington, Texas, Florida and Arizona. The state of Wyoming has the least economic and employment impacts with $31,013 and no new jobs created. The average economic and employment impacts of public safety spending per state are $1,796,989 and creation of 18 new jobs. The standard deviation of economic and employment impacts of public safety spending is $2,638,517 and creation of 27 new jobs. The large standard deviation again indicates the wide variability among states.

Table 8: 2015 Total Economic & Employment Impacts of Agriculture Spending

Table 9: 2015 Total Economic & Employment Impacts of Public Safety Spending

Direct Spending

State Payroll Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaw are Florida Georgia Haw aii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iow a Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada

Parts

Taxes

Total

Wyoming

$9,317,676 $611,763 $17,225,796 $2,565,690 $65,438,414 $7,416,208 $16,575,698 $557,285 $19,927,882 $11,882,156 $1,041,126 $932,978 $6,571,201 $6,686,613 $5,193,121 $14,873,981 $2,877,624 $6,918,647 $3,444,594 $10,645,314 $12,175,124 $6,060,323 $4,561,989 $5,268,583 $8,276,550 $462,857 $807,478 $1,255,001 $2,817,497 $8,353,625 $3,271,880 $13,878,051 $4,898,943 $453,576 $11,362,400 $3,410,294 $2,632,274 $12,598,434 $1,364,360 $3,185,523 $305,881 $3,390,117 $35,422,907 $4,636,240 $1,150,888 $14,907,071 $37,902,240 $1,504,791 $2,825,568 $155,765

$13,976,514 $917,644 $25,838,695 $3,848,535 $98,157,622 $11,124,313 $24,863,547 $835,928 $29,891,823 $17,823,233 $1,561,689 $1,399,467 $9,856,802 $10,029,919 $7,789,682 $22,310,972 $4,316,437 $10,377,970 $5,166,891 $15,967,971 $18,262,685 $9,090,485 $6,842,984 $7,902,874 $12,414,825 $694,286 $1,211,217 $1,882,501 $4,226,246 $12,530,438 $4,907,821 $20,817,077 $7,348,414 $680,364 $17,043,599 $5,115,440 $3,948,411 $18,897,651 $2,046,539 $4,778,285 $458,822 $5,085,175 $53,134,361 $6,954,360 $1,726,333 $22,360,607 $56,853,360 $2,257,186 $4,238,352 $233,648

$372,707 $0 $396,882 $143,679 $2,094,029 $274,696 $663,028 $24,743 $0 $570,343 $59,969 $55,232 $262,848 $181,876 $141,253 $743,699 $138,126 $221,397 $192,897 $404,522 $516,225 $210,899 $257,296 $168,595 $264,850 $23,328 $33,074 $0 $0 $497,876 $112,553 $716,107 $274,341 $10,233 $372,687 $143,232 $63,175 $309,418 $58,326 $178,389 $0 $0 $0 $185,450 $71,815 $685,725 $0 $72,230 $146,930 $0

$23,666,897 $1,529,406 $43,461,373 $6,557,904 $165,690,065 $18,815,217 $42,102,272 $1,417,956 $49,819,705 $30,275,732 $2,662,784 $2,387,678 $16,690,851 $16,898,408 $13,124,056 $37,928,652 $7,332,187 $17,518,014 $8,804,383 $27,017,806 $30,954,034 $15,361,707 $11,662,269 $13,340,052 $20,956,224 $1,180,471 $2,051,770 $3,137,502 $7,043,743 $21,381,940 $8,292,254 $35,411,235 $12,521,698 $1,144,172 $28,778,686 $8,668,966 $6,643,859 $31,805,503 $3,469,225 $8,142,198 $764,703 $8,475,292 $88,557,268 $11,776,049 $2,949,036 $37,953,403 $94,755,601 $3,834,206 $7,210,850 $389,413

TOTAL

$420,000,000

$630,000,000

$12,314,681

$1,062,314,681

Ne w Ha mps hire Ne w J e rs e y Ne w Me xic o Ne w Y ork North C a rolina North Da kota O hio O kla homa O re g on P e nns ylva nia R hode Is la nd S outh C a rolina S outh Da kota T e nne s s e e T e xa s Uta h V e rmont V irg inia Wa s hing ton We s t V irg inia Wis c ons in

State Total Multipliers 1.9043 1.8623 1.9800 1.8718 2.2143 1.8893 1.9598 1.8594 1.9477 1.9216 1.8604 1.8602 1.8750 1.8850 1.8589 1.9792 1.8681 1.8684 1.8584 1.9061 1.9142 1.8748 1.8677 1.8621 1.9064 1.8589 1.8600 1.8666 1.8612 1.8883 1.8642 1.9184 1.8711 1.8585 1.9129 1.8753 1.8685 1.8964 1.8638 1.8585 1.8673 2.0342 1.8834 1.8619 1.8578 1.8720 2.1250 1.8662 1.8642 1.8583

Total Economic Impact $45,068,872 $2,848,213 $86,053,519 $12,275,085 $366,887,512 $35,547,590 $82,512,034 $2,636,547 $97,033,840 $58,177,847 $4,953,844 $4,441,558 $31,295,346 $31,853,499 $24,396,309 $75,068,387 $13,697,259 $32,730,657 $16,362,066 $51,498,641 $59,252,213 $28,800,128 $21,781,620 $24,840,511 $39,950,946 $2,194,378 $3,816,291 $5,856,462 $13,109,815 $40,375,517 $15,458,419 $67,932,913 $23,429,348 $2,126,445 $55,050,748 $16,256,913 $12,414,050 $60,315,956 $6,465,942 $15,132,275 $1,427,930 $17,240,439 $166,788,758 $21,925,827 $5,478,720 $71,048,771 $201,355,651 $7,155,396 $13,442,466 $723,647 $2,096,487,120

Total Employment Impact 464 29 885 126 3,774 366 849 27 998 598 51 46 322 328 251 772 141 337 168 530 609 296 224 256 411 23 39 60 135 415 159 699 241 22 566 167 128 620 67 156 15 177 1,716 226 56 731 2,071 74 138 7 21,565

A ve ra g e

$41,929,742

431

S TD

$61,565,404

633

Payroll Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaw are Florida Georgia Haw aii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iow a Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming TOTAL

Parts

Taxes

Total

$399,329 $26,218 $738,248 $109,958 $2,804,503 $317,838 $710,387 $23,884 $854,052 $509,235 $44,620 $39,985 $281,623 $286,569 $222,562 $637,456 $123,327 $296,513 $147,625 $456,228 $521,791 $259,728 $195,514 $225,796 $354,709 $19,837 $34,606 $53,786 $120,750 $358,013 $140,223 $594,774 $209,955 $19,439 $486,960 $146,155 $112,812 $539,933 $58,473 $136,522 $13,109 $145,291 $1,518,125 $198,696 $49,324 $638,874 $1,624,382 $64,491 $121,096 $6,676

$598,993 $39,328 $1,107,373 $164,937 $4,206,755 $476,756 $1,065,581 $35,825 $1,281,078 $763,853 $66,930 $59,977 $422,434 $429,854 $333,844 $956,184 $184,990 $444,770 $221,438 $684,342 $782,687 $389,592 $293,271 $338,695 $532,064 $29,755 $51,909 $80,679 $181,125 $537,019 $210,335 $892,160 $314,932 $29,158 $730,440 $219,233 $169,218 $809,899 $87,709 $204,784 $19,664 $217,936 $2,277,187 $298,044 $73,986 $958,312 $2,436,573 $96,737 $181,644 $10,013

$15,973 $0 $17,009 $6,158 $89,744 $11,773 $28,415 $1,060 $0 $24,443 $2,570 $2,367 $11,265 $7,795 $6,054 $31,873 $5,920 $9,488 $8,267 $17,337 $22,124 $9,039 $11,027 $7,225 $11,351 $1,000 $1,417 $0 $0 $21,338 $4,824 $30,690 $11,757 $439 $15,972 $6,139 $2,707 $13,261 $2,500 $7,645 $0 $0 $0 $7,948 $3,078 $29,388 $0 $3,096 $6,297 $0

$1,014,296 $65,546 $1,862,630 $281,053 $7,101,003 $806,366 $1,804,383 $60,770 $2,135,130 $1,297,531 $114,119 $102,329 $715,322 $724,217 $562,460 $1,625,514 $314,237 $750,772 $377,331 $1,157,906 $1,326,601 $658,359 $499,812 $571,717 $898,124 $50,592 $87,933 $134,464 $301,875 $916,369 $355,382 $1,517,624 $536,644 $49,036 $1,233,372 $371,527 $284,737 $1,363,093 $148,681 $348,951 $32,773 $363,227 $3,795,311 $504,688 $126,387 $1,626,574 $4,060,954 $164,323 $309,036 $16,689

$18,000,000

$27,000,000

$527,772

$45,527,772

State Total Multipliers

Total Economic Impact

1.9043 1.8623 1.9800 1.8718 2.2143 1.8893 1.9598 1.8594 1.9477 1.9216 1.8604 1.8602 1.8750 1.8850 1.8589 1.9792 1.8681 1.8684 1.8584 1.9061 1.9142 1.8748 1.8677 1.8621 1.9064 1.8589 1.8600 1.8666 1.8612 1.8883 1.8642 1.9184 1.8711 1.8585 1.9129 1.8753 1.8685 1.8964 1.8638 1.8585 1.8673 2.0342 1.8834 1.8619 1.8578 1.8720 2.1250 1.8662 1.8642 1.8583

$1,931,523 $122,066 $3,688,008 $526,075 $15,723,751 $1,523,468 $3,536,230 $112,995 $4,158,593 $2,493,336 $212,308 $190,353 $1,341,229 $1,365,150 $1,045,556 $3,217,217 $587,025 $1,402,742 $701,231 $2,207,085 $2,539,381 $1,234,291 $933,498 $1,064,593 $1,712,183 $94,045 $163,555 $250,991 $561,849 $1,730,379 $662,504 $2,911,411 $1,004,115 $91,133 $2,359,318 $696,725 $532,031 $2,584,970 $277,112 $648,526 $61,197 $738,876 $7,148,090 $939,678 $234,802 $3,044,947 $8,629,528 $306,660 $576,106 $31,013 $89,849,448

Total Employment Impact 20 1 38 5 162 16 36 1 43 26 2 2 14 14 11 33 6 14 7 23 26 13 10 11 18 1 2 3 6 18 7 30 10 1 24 7 5 27 3 7 1 8 74 10 2 31 89 3 6 0 924

A ve ra g e

$1,796,989

S TD

$2,638,517

MA X

$15,723,751

162

MIN

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Direct Spending

State

$31,013

Total Economic and Employment Impacts of Agriculture, Public Safety and Other Spending Table 10 presents the estimated total economic and employment impacts of agriculture, public safety and other spending in 2015 all 50 states. The total economic impact of these markets in all 50 states is more than $2,276 million with total job creation of 23,413. The state with the largest economic and employment impact is California with a total of more than $398.3 million and creation of 4,097 new jobs. Following California in descending rank order are Washington, Texas, Florida and Arizona. In addition, the order of job creation was similar to estimated total economic impact. Wyoming has the least economic and employment impacts with $785,674 and eight new jobs created. The average economic and employment impacts of agriculture, public safety and other spending per state are approximately $45.5 million and creation of 468 new jobs. The standard deviation of economic and employment impacts is approximately $66.8 million and 688 new jobs created. As with agriculture, public safety and other state estimates, there is a wide variability of economic and employment impacts and job creation among states. Table 10: 2015 Total Economic & Employment Impacts of Agriculture, Public Safety and Other Spending Direct Spending

State Payroll Alabama $10,116,334 Alaska $664,199 Arizona $18,702,293 Arkansas $2,785,606 California $71,047,421 Colorado $8,051,883 Connecticut $17,996,472 Delaw are $605,052 Florida $21,635,986 Georgia $12,900,626 Haw aii $1,130,366 Idaho $1,012,948 Illinois $7,134,447 Indiana $7,259,751 Iow a $5,638,246 Kansas $16,148,894 Kentucky $3,124,278 Louisiana $7,511,674 Maine $3,739,845 Maryland $11,557,769 Massachusetts $13,218,706 Michigan $6,579,779 Minnesota $4,953,017 Mississippi $5,720,176 Missouri $8,985,968 Montana $502,531 Nebraska $876,691 Nevada $1,362,572 New Hampshire $3,058,997 New Jersey $9,069,651 New Mexico $3,552,327 New York $15,067,598 North Carolina $5,318,852 North Dakota $492,454 Ohio $12,336,320 Oklahoma $3,702,605 Oregon $2,857,897 Pennsylvania $13,678,300 Rhode Island $1,481,305 South Carolina $3,458,568 South Dakota $332,100 Tennessee $3,680,698 Texas $38,459,156 Utah $5,033,632 Vermont $1,249,536 Virginia $16,184,820 Washington $41,151,004 West Virginia $1,633,773 Wisconsin $3,067,760 Wyoming $169,117 TOTAL $456,000,000 Average STD MAX MIN

Parts $15,174,501 $996,299 $28,053,440 $4,178,410 $106,571,132 $12,077,825 $26,994,708 $907,578 $32,453,979 $19,350,939 $1,695,548 $1,519,422 $10,701,671 $10,889,627 $8,457,369 $24,223,341 $4,686,417 $11,267,511 $5,609,768 $17,336,654 $19,828,059 $9,869,669 $7,429,525 $8,580,264 $13,478,953 $753,796 $1,315,036 $2,043,859 $4,588,496 $13,604,476 $5,328,491 $22,601,397 $7,978,278 $738,681 $18,504,479 $5,553,907 $4,286,846 $20,517,450 $2,221,957 $5,187,852 $498,149 $5,521,047 $57,688,734 $7,550,448 $1,874,304 $24,277,230 $61,726,505 $2,450,659 $4,601,640 $253,675 $684,000,000

Taxes

Total

$404,653 $25,695,488 $0 $1,660,498 $430,901 $47,186,634 $155,994 $7,120,010 $2,273,517 $179,892,071 $298,242 $20,427,950 $719,859 $45,711,039 $26,864 $1,539,495 $0 $54,089,966 $619,230 $32,870,795 $65,109 $2,891,023 $59,967 $2,592,336 $285,378 $18,121,496 $197,465 $18,346,843 $153,360 $14,248,976 $807,445 $41,179,679 $149,965 $7,960,660 $240,374 $19,019,558 $209,431 $9,559,045 $439,195 $29,333,618 $560,473 $33,607,237 $228,976 $16,678,425 $279,350 $12,661,892 $183,046 $14,483,485 $287,551 $22,752,472 $25,328 $1,281,654 $35,909 $2,227,636 $0 $3,406,431 $0 $7,647,493 $540,551 $23,214,678 $122,200 $9,003,018 $777,488 $38,446,484 $297,856 $13,594,986 $11,110 $1,242,244 $404,631 $31,245,430 $155,509 $9,412,021 $68,590 $7,213,333 $335,939 $34,531,689 $63,326 $3,766,588 $193,680 $8,840,100 $0 $830,249 $0 $9,201,746 $0 $96,147,891 $201,345 $12,785,425 $77,971 $3,201,811 $744,502 $41,206,552 $0 $102,877,509 $78,421 $4,162,853 $159,524 $7,828,923 $0 $422,792 $13,370,225 $1,153,370,225

State Total Multipliers

Total Economic Impact

Total Employment Impact

$48,931,919 $3,092,346 $93,429,535 $13,327,235 $398,335,013 $38,594,526 $89,584,494 $2,862,537 $105,351,026 $63,164,520 $5,378,459 $4,822,263 $33,977,804 $34,583,799 $26,487,421 $81,502,821 $14,871,309 $35,536,142 $17,764,528 $55,912,810 $64,330,974 $31,268,710 $23,648,616 $26,969,697 $43,375,313 $2,382,467 $4,143,402 $6,358,445 $14,233,514 $43,836,276 $16,783,427 $73,755,734 $25,437,578 $2,308,711 $59,769,383 $17,650,363 $13,478,112 $65,485,895 $7,020,166 $16,429,327 $1,550,324 $18,718,191 $181,084,937 $23,805,183 $5,948,324 $77,138,665 $218,614,707 $7,768,716 $14,594,678 $785,674 $2,276,186,016 $45,523,720 $66,842,438

503 32 961 137 4,097 397 921 29 1,084 650 55 50 350 356 272 838 153 366 183 575 662 322 243 277 446 25 43 65 146 451 173 759 262 24 615 182 139 674 72 169 16 193 1,863 245 61 793 2,249 80 150 8 23,413 468 688

$398,335,013 $785,674

4,097 8

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Economic Impact ... Agriculture Spending Total Economic and Employment Impacts of Agriculture Direct Spending

Total Economic and Employment Impacts of Agriculture Indirect Spending

Tables 11, 12 and 13 show the 2015 direct, indirect and induced impacts respectively, of agriculture spending. Table 11 presents the total economic and employment impacts of direct agriculture spending in all 50 states. The nationwide total economic impact is an estimated $1,058,841,630 with about 11,094 newly created jobs. The largest economic and employment impacts of direct agriculture spending is in California with total economic impact of more than $185,307,769 and creation of 1,942 new jobs. As before, the order of job creation was similar to overall economic impact. The state with least economic and employment impacts is Wyoming with $365,503 and four newly created jobs. The average economic and employment impacts of direct agriculture spending per state are approximately $21,176,833 and an estimated 222 new jobs. The standard deviation of economic and employment impacts of direct agriculture spending is approximately $31,094,684 and new job creation of 326. This again reflects the wide spread of economic and employment impacts among states.

The total economic and employment impact of indirect agriculture spending in all 50 states is shown in Table 12. The nationwide total economic impact is approximately $487,060,836, with an estimated 5,103 new jobs. The largest economic and employment impacts of indirect agriculture spending is in the state of California with a total economic impact of approximately $85,230,970 and creation of 893 new jobs. The order of job creation was similar to overall economic impact. Wyoming has the least economic and employment impact with $168,110 and creation of two new jobs. The average economic and employment impacts of indirect agriculture spending per state are $9,741,217 and creation of 102 jobs. The standard deviation of economic and employment impacts of indirect agriculture spending is $14,302,673 and job creation of 150. The large standard deviation indicates the wide variability of economic and employment impacts among states.

Table 11: 2015 Direct Economic & Employment Impacts of Agriculture Spending Direct Spending

State Payroll Alabama $9,317,676 Alaska $611,763 Arizona $17,225,796 Arkansas $2,565,690 California $65,438,414 Colorado $7,416,208 Connecticut $16,575,698 Delaw are $557,285 Florida $19,927,882 Georgia $11,882,156 Haw aii $1,041,126 Idaho $932,978 Illinois $6,571,201 Indiana $6,686,613 Iow a $5,193,121 Kansas $14,873,981 Kentucky $2,877,624 Louisiana $6,918,647 Maine $3,444,594 Maryland $10,645,314 Massachusetts $12,175,124 Michigan $6,060,323 Minnesota $4,561,989 Mississippi $5,268,583 Missouri $8,276,550 Montana $462,857 Nebraska $807,478 Nevada $1,255,001 New Hampshire $2,817,497 New Jersey $8,353,625 New Mexico $3,271,880 New York $13,878,051 North Carolina $4,898,943 North Dakota $453,576 Ohio $11,362,400 Oklahoma $3,410,294 Oregon $2,632,274 Pennsylvania $12,598,434 Rhode Island $1,364,360 South Carolina $3,185,523 South Dakota $305,881 Tennessee $3,390,117 Texas $35,422,907 Utah $4,636,240 Vermont $1,150,888 Virginia $14,907,071 Washington $37,902,240 West Virginia $1,504,791 Wisconsin $2,825,568 Wyoming $155,765 TOTAL $420,000,000 Average STD

Parts $13,976,514 $917,644 $25,838,695 $3,848,535 $98,157,622 $11,124,313 $24,863,547 $835,928 $29,891,823 $17,823,233 $1,561,689 $1,399,467 $9,856,802 $10,029,919 $7,789,682 $22,310,972 $4,316,437 $10,377,970 $5,166,891 $15,967,971 $18,262,685 $9,090,485 $6,842,984 $7,902,874 $12,414,825 $694,286 $1,211,217 $1,882,501 $4,226,246 $12,530,438 $4,907,821 $20,817,077 $7,348,414 $680,364 $17,043,599 $5,115,440 $3,948,411 $18,897,651 $2,046,539 $4,778,285 $458,822 $5,085,175 $53,134,361 $6,954,360 $1,726,333 $22,360,607 $56,853,360 $2,257,186 $4,238,352 $233,648 $630,000,000

Taxes

Total

$372,707 $23,666,897 $0 $1,529,406 $396,882 $43,461,373 $143,679 $6,557,904 $2,094,029 $165,690,065 $274,696 $18,815,217 $663,028 $42,102,272 $24,743 $1,417,956 $0 $49,819,705 $570,343 $30,275,732 $59,969 $2,662,784 $55,232 $2,387,678 $262,848 $16,690,851 $181,876 $16,898,408 $141,253 $13,124,056 $743,699 $37,928,652 $138,126 $7,332,187 $221,397 $17,518,014 $192,897 $8,804,383 $404,522 $27,017,806 $516,225 $30,954,034 $210,899 $15,361,707 $257,296 $11,662,269 $168,595 $13,340,052 $264,850 $20,956,224 $23,328 $1,180,471 $33,074 $2,051,770 $0 $3,137,502 $0 $7,043,743 $497,876 $21,381,940 $112,553 $8,292,254 $716,107 $35,411,235 $274,341 $12,521,698 $10,233 $1,144,172 $372,687 $28,778,686 $143,232 $8,668,966 $63,175 $6,643,859 $309,418 $31,805,503 $58,326 $3,469,225 $178,389 $8,142,198 $0 $764,703 $0 $8,475,292 $0 $88,557,268 $185,450 $11,776,049 $71,815 $2,949,036 $685,725 $37,953,403 $0 $94,755,601 $72,230 $3,834,206 $146,930 $7,210,850 $0 $389,413 $12,314,681 $1,062,314,681

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Direct State Direct Direct Economic Employment Multipliers Impact Impact 0.9618 0.9405 1 0.9453 1.1184 0.9542 0.9898 0.9391 0.9837 0.9705 0.9396 0.9395 0.947 0.952 0.9388 0.9996 0.9435 0.9436 0.9386 0.9627 0.9668 0.9468 0.9433 0.9405 0.9628 0.9388 0.9394 0.9427 0.94 0.9537 0.9415 0.9689 0.945 0.9386 0.9661 0.9471 0.9437 0.9578 0.9413 0.9386 0.9431 1.0274 0.9512 0.9403 0.9383 0.9455 1.0732 0.9425 0.9415 0.9386

$22,762,822 $1,438,407 $43,461,373 $6,199,187 $185,307,769 $17,953,480 $41,672,829 $1,331,602 $49,007,644 $29,382,598 $2,501,952 $2,243,223 $15,806,236 $16,087,285 $12,320,864 $37,913,480 $6,917,918 $16,529,998 $8,263,794 $26,010,042 $29,926,360 $14,544,464 $11,001,018 $12,546,319 $20,176,653 $1,108,226 $1,927,432 $2,957,724 $6,621,119 $20,391,956 $7,807,157 $34,309,946 $11,833,004 $1,073,920 $27,803,088 $8,210,378 $6,269,810 $30,463,311 $3,265,582 $7,642,267 $721,192 $8,707,515 $84,235,673 $11,073,019 $2,767,081 $35,884,943 $101,691,710 $3,613,739 $6,789,015 $365,503 $1,058,841,630 $21,176,833 $31,094,684

238 15 455 65 1942 188 437 14 513 308 26 24 166 169 129 397 72 173 87 273 314 152 115 131 211 12 20 31 69 214 82 359 124 11 291 86 66 319 34 80 8 91 883 116 29 376 1065 38 71 4 11,094 222 326

Table 12: 2015 Indirect Economic & Employment Impacts of Agriculture Spending Direct Spending

Taxes

Total

State Indirect Multipliers

Indirect Economic Impact

0.4424 0.4327 0.46 0.4349 0.5144 0.4389 0.4553 0.432 0.4525 0.4464 0.4322 0.4322 0.4356 0.4379 0.4319 0.4598 0.434 0.4341 0.4317 0.4428 0.4447 0.4356 0.4339 0.4326 0.4429 0.4319 0.4321 0.4337 0.4324 0.4387 0.4331 0.4457 0.4347 0.4318 0.4444 0.4357 0.4341 0.4406 0.433 0.4318 0.4338 0.4726 0.4376 0.4326 0.4316 0.4349 0.4937 0.4336 0.4331 0.4317

$10,470,235 $661,774 $19,992,232 $2,852,032 $85,230,970 $8,257,999 $19,169,165 $612,557 $22,543,417 $13,515,087 $1,150,855 $1,031,954 $7,270,535 $7,399,813 $5,668,280 $17,439,594 $3,182,169 $7,604,570 $3,800,852 $11,963,485 $13,765,259 $6,691,560 $5,060,258 $5,770,906 $9,281,512 $509,846 $886,570 $1,360,735 $3,045,715 $9,380,257 $3,591,375 $15,782,787 $5,443,182 $494,054 $12,789,248 $3,777,069 $2,884,099 $14,013,505 $1,502,175 $3,515,801 $331,728 $4,005,423 $38,752,660 $5,094,319 $1,272,804 $16,505,935 $46,780,840 $1,662,512 $3,123,019 $168,110 $487,060,836 $9,741,217 $14,302,673

Indirect Employment Impact 110 7 209 30 893 87 201 6 236 142 12 11 76 78 59 183 33 80 40 125 144 70 53 60 97 5 9 14 32 98 38 165 57 5 134 40 30 147 16 37 3 42 406 53 13 173 490 17 33 2 5,103 102 150

Economic Impact ... Agriculture Spending Total Economic and Employment Impacts of Agriculture Induced Spending Table 13 presents the total economic and employment impacts of induced agriculture spending in 2015 in all 50 states. The estimated nationwide total economic impact is $550,584,654 with the creation of 5,770 new jobs. The largest economic and employment impacts of induced agriculture spending is in the state of California with a total economic impact of approximately $96,348,773 and creation of 1,010 new jobs. The order of job creation was similar to economic impact. The state of Wyoming has the least amount economic and employment impact with $190,034 and the creation of two new jobs. The average economic and employment impacts of induced agriculture spending per state are an estimated 11,011,693 and creation of 115 jobs. The standard deviation of economic and employment impacts of induced agriculture spending is approximately $16,168,047 and 169 jobs. There is wide variability in economic and employment impacts among states as is evidenced by the large standard deviation.

Table 13: 2015 Induced Economic & Employment Impacts of Agriculture Spending Direct Spending

Taxes

Total

State Induced Multipliers

Induced Economic Impact

0.5001 0.4891 0.52 0.4916 0.5815 0.4962 0.5147 0.4883 0.5115 0.5047 0.4886 0.4885 0.4924 0.4951 0.4882 0.5198 0.4906 0.4907 0.4881 0.5006 0.5027 0.4924 0.4905 0.489 0.5007 0.4882 0.4885 0.4902 0.4888 0.4959 0.4896 0.5038 0.4914 0.4881 0.5024 0.4925 0.4907 0.498 0.4895 0.4881 0.4904 0.5342 0.4946 0.489 0.4879 0.4916 0.5581 0.4901 0.4896 0.488

$11,835,815 $748,033 $22,599,914 $3,223,866 $96,348,773 $9,336,111 $21,670,040 $692,388 $25,482,779 $15,280,162 $1,301,036 $1,166,381 $8,218,575 $8,366,402 $6,407,164 $19,715,313 $3,597,171 $8,596,089 $4,297,419 $13,525,114 $15,560,593 $7,564,104 $5,720,343 $6,523,285 $10,492,781 $576,306 $1,002,289 $1,538,004 $3,442,982 $10,603,304 $4,059,887 $17,840,180 $6,153,162 $558,471 $14,458,412 $4,269,466 $3,260,142 $15,839,141 $1,698,186 $3,974,207 $375,010 $4,527,501 $43,800,425 $5,758,488 $1,438,835 $18,657,893 $52,883,101 $1,879,145 $3,530,432 $190,034 $550,584,654 $11,011,693 $16,168,047

Induced Employment Impact 124 8 237 34 1,010 98 227 7 267 160 14 12 86 88 67 207 38 90 45 142 163 79 60 68 110 6 11 16 36 111 43 187 64 6 152 45 34 166 18 42 4 47 459 60 15 196 554 20 37 2 5,770 115 169

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Economic Impact ... Public Safety and Other Spending Total Economic and Employment Impacts of Public Safety and Other Direct Spending

Total Economic and Employment Impacts of Public Safety and Other Indirect Spending

Tables 14, 15, and 16 show the 2015 direct, indirect, and induced impacts respectively, of public safety spending. Since the impacts to â&#x20AC;&#x153;otherâ&#x20AC;? markets are equivalent to public safety, that data is not presented. Table 14 presents the total economic and employment impacts of direct public safety spending in all 50 states. The total economic impact is approximately $45,378,927 with a total job creation of 475. The largest economic and employment impacts of direct public safety spending is in the state of California with a total economic impact of $7,941,762 and creation of 83 new jobs. The state of Wyoming has the least economic and employment impacts among public safety direct spending with $15,664 and no new jobs created. The average economic and employment impacts of direct public safety spending per state are approximately $907,579 and creation of 10 new jobs. The standard deviation of economic and employment impacts of direct public safety spending are approximately $1,332,629 and new job creation of 14. The large standard deviation again indicates the variability of economic and employment impacts of direct public safety spending among states.

The total economic and employment impact of indirect public safety spending in 2015 in all 50 states is shown in Table 15. The nationwide total economic impact is approximately $20,874,036 creation of an estimated 219 new jobs. The largest economic and employment impacts of indirect public safety spending is in the state of California with total economic impact of more than $3,652,756 and creation of 38 new jobs. Wyoming has the least economic and employment impacts with $7,205 and no new jobs created. The economic and employment impacts of indirect public safety spending per state averages approximately $417,481 and creation of four new jobs. The standard deviation of economic and employment impacts of indirect public safety spending are $612,972 creation of six new jobs. As with public safety direct spending, there is a wide variability of economic and employment impacts among the states.

Table 14: 2015 Direct Economic & Employment Impacts of Public Safety Spending Direct Spending

State Payroll Alabama $399,329 Alaska $26,218 Arizona $738,248 Arkansas $109,958 California $2,804,503 Colorado $317,838 Connecticut $710,387 Delaw are $23,884 Florida $854,052 Georgia $509,235 Haw aii $44,620 Idaho $39,985 Illinois $281,623 Indiana $286,569 Iow a $222,562 Kansas $637,456 Kentucky $123,327 Louisiana $296,513 Maine $147,625 Maryland $456,228 Massachusetts $521,791 Michigan $259,728 Minnesota $195,514 Mississippi $225,796 Missouri $354,709 Montana $19,837 Nebraska $34,606 Nevada $53,786 New Hampshire $120,750 New Jersey $358,013 New Mexico $140,223 New York $594,774 North Carolina $209,955 North Dakota $19,439 Ohio $486,960 Oklahoma $146,155 Oregon $112,812 Pennsylvania $539,933 Rhode Island $58,473 South Carolina $136,522 South Dakota $13,109 Tennessee $145,291 Texas $1,518,125 Utah $198,696 Vermont $49,324 Virginia $638,874 Washington $1,624,382 West Virginia $64,491 Wisconsin $121,096 Wyoming $6,676 TOTAL $18,000,000 Average STD

Parts

Taxes

Total

$598,993 $15,973 $1,014,296 $39,328 $0 $65,546 $1,107,373 $17,009 $1,862,630 $164,937 $6,158 $281,053 $4,206,755 $89,744 $7,101,003 $476,756 $11,773 $806,366 $1,065,581 $28,415 $1,804,383 $35,825 $1,060 $60,770 $1,281,078 $0 $2,135,130 $763,853 $24,443 $1,297,531 $66,930 $2,570 $114,119 $59,977 $2,367 $102,329 $422,434 $11,265 $715,322 $429,854 $7,795 $724,217 $333,844 $6,054 $562,460 $956,184 $31,873 $1,625,514 $184,990 $5,920 $314,237 $444,770 $9,488 $750,772 $221,438 $8,267 $377,331 $684,342 $17,337 $1,157,906 $782,687 $22,124 $1,326,601 $389,592 $9,039 $658,359 $293,271 $11,027 $499,812 $338,695 $7,225 $571,717 $532,064 $11,351 $898,124 $29,755 $1,000 $50,592 $51,909 $1,417 $87,933 $80,679 $0 $134,464 $181,125 $0 $301,875 $537,019 $21,338 $916,369 $210,335 $4,824 $355,382 $892,160 $30,690 $1,517,624 $314,932 $11,757 $536,644 $29,158 $439 $49,036 $730,440 $15,972 $1,233,372 $219,233 $6,139 $371,527 $169,218 $2,707 $284,737 $809,899 $13,261 $1,363,093 $87,709 $2,500 $148,681 $204,784 $7,645 $348,951 $19,664 $0 $32,773 $217,936 $0 $363,227 $2,277,187 $0 $3,795,311 $298,044 $7,948 $504,688 $73,986 $3,078 $126,387 $958,312 $29,388 $1,626,574 $2,436,573 $0 $4,060,954 $96,737 $3,096 $164,323 $181,644 $6,297 $309,036 $10,013 $0 $16,689 $27,000,000 $527,772 $45,527,772

MA X MIN

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

State Direct Multipliers 0.9618 0.9405 1 0.9453 1.1184 0.9542 0.9898 0.9391 0.9837 0.9705 0.9396 0.9395 0.947 0.952 0.9388 0.9996 0.9435 0.9436 0.9386 0.9627 0.9668 0.9468 0.9433 0.9405 0.9628 0.9388 0.9394 0.9427 0.94 0.9537 0.9415 0.9689 0.945 0.9386 0.9661 0.9471 0.9437 0.9578 0.9413 0.9386 0.9431 1.0274 0.9512 0.9403 0.9383 0.9455 1.0732 0.9425 0.9415 0.9386

Direct Economic Impact $975,550 $61,646 $1,862,630 $265,679 $7,941,762 $769,435 $1,785,978 $57,069 $2,100,328 $1,259,254 $107,227 $96,138 $677,410 $689,455 $528,037 $1,624,863 $296,482 $708,428 $354,163 $1,114,716 $1,282,558 $623,334 $471,472 $537,699 $864,714 $47,495 $82,604 $126,760 $283,762 $873,941 $334,592 $1,470,426 $507,129 $46,025 $1,191,561 $351,873 $268,706 $1,305,570 $139,954 $327,526 $30,908 $373,179 $3,610,100 $474,558 $118,589 $1,537,926 $4,358,216 $154,875 $290,958 $15,664 $45,378,927 $907,579 $1,332,629

Table 15: 2015 Indirect Economic & Employment Impacts of Public Safety Spending

Direct Employment Impact

475 10 14

10 1 20 3 83 8 19 1 22 13 1 1 7 7 6 17 3 7 4 12 13 7 5 6 9 0 1 1 3 9 4 15 5 0 12 4 3 14 1 3 0 4 38 5 1 16 46 2 3 0

Direct Spending

State Payroll

Parts

Alabama $399,329 $598,993 Alaska $26,218 $39,328 Arizona $738,248 $1,107,373 Arkansas $109,958 $164,937 California $2,804,503 $4,206,755 Colorado $317,838 $476,756 Connecticut $710,387 $1,065,581 Delaw are $23,884 $35,825 Florida $854,052 $1,281,078 Georgia $509,235 $763,853 Haw aii $44,620 $66,930 Idaho $39,985 $59,977 Illinois $281,623 $422,434 Indiana $286,569 $429,854 Iow a $222,562 $333,844 Kansas $637,456 $956,184 Kentucky $123,327 $184,990 Louisiana $296,513 $444,770 Maine $147,625 $221,438 Maryland $456,228 $684,342 Massachusetts $521,791 $782,687 Michigan $259,728 $389,592 Minnesota $195,514 $293,271 Mississippi $225,796 $338,695 Missouri $354,709 $532,064 Montana $19,837 $29,755 Nebraska $34,606 $51,909 Nevada $53,786 $80,679 New Hampshire $120,750 $181,125 New Jersey $358,013 $537,019 New Mexico $140,223 $210,335 New York $594,774 $892,160 North Carolina $209,955 $314,932 North Dakota $19,439 $29,158 Ohio $486,960 $730,440 Oklahoma $146,155 $219,233 Oregon $112,812 $169,218 Pennsylvania $539,933 $809,899 Rhode Island $58,473 $87,709 South Carolina $136,522 $204,784 South Dakota $13,109 $19,664 Tennessee $145,291 $217,936 Texas $1,518,125 $2,277,187 Utah $198,696 $298,044 Vermont $49,324 $73,986 Virginia $638,874 $958,312 Washington $1,624,382 $2,436,573 West Virginia $64,491 $96,737 Wisconsin $121,096 $181,644 Wyoming $6,676 $10,013 TOTAL $18,000,000 $27,000,000 Average STD

$7,941,762

MA X

$15,664

MIN

Taxes

Total

$15,973 $1,014,296 $0 $65,546 $17,009 $1,862,630 $6,158 $281,053 $89,744 $7,101,003 $11,773 $806,366 $28,415 $1,804,383 $1,060 $60,770 $0 $2,135,130 $24,443 $1,297,531 $2,570 $114,119 $2,367 $102,329 $11,265 $715,322 $7,795 $724,217 $6,054 $562,460 $31,873 $1,625,514 $5,920 $314,237 $9,488 $750,772 $8,267 $377,331 $17,337 $1,157,906 $22,124 $1,326,601 $9,039 $658,359 $11,027 $499,812 $7,225 $571,717 $11,351 $898,124 $1,000 $50,592 $1,417 $87,933 $0 $134,464 $0 $301,875 $21,338 $916,369 $4,824 $355,382 $30,690 $1,517,624 $11,757 $536,644 $439 $49,036 $15,972 $1,233,372 $6,139 $371,527 $2,707 $284,737 $13,261 $1,363,093 $2,500 $148,681 $7,645 $348,951 $0 $32,773 $0 $363,227 $0 $3,795,311 $7,948 $504,688 $3,078 $126,387 $29,388 $1,626,574 $0 $4,060,954 $3,096 $164,323 $6,297 $309,036 $0 $16,689 $527,772 $45,527,772

State Indirect Multipliers 0.4424 0.4327 0.46 0.4349 0.5144 0.4389 0.4553 0.432 0.4525 0.4464 0.4322 0.4322 0.4356 0.4379 0.4319 0.4598 0.434 0.4341 0.4317 0.4428 0.4447 0.4356 0.4339 0.4326 0.4429 0.4319 0.4321 0.4337 0.4324 0.4387 0.4331 0.4457 0.4347 0.4318 0.4444 0.4357 0.4341 0.4406 0.433 0.4318 0.4338 0.4726 0.4376 0.4326 0.4316 0.4349 0.4937 0.4336 0.4331 0.4317

Indirect Economic Impact $448,724 $28,362 $856,810 $122,230 $3,652,756 $353,914 $821,536 $26,252 $966,146 $579,218 $49,322 $44,227 $311,594 $317,135 $242,926 $747,411 $136,379 $325,910 $162,894 $512,721 $589,940 $286,781 $216,868 $247,325 $397,779 $21,851 $37,996 $58,317 $130,531 $402,011 $153,916 $676,405 $233,279 $21,174 $548,111 $161,874 $123,604 $600,579 $64,379 $150,677 $14,217 $171,661 $1,660,828 $218,328 $54,549 $707,397 $2,004,893 $71,251 $133,844 $7,205 $20,874,036 $417,481 $612,972

Indirect Employment Impact

219 4 6

$3,652,756

$7,205

5 0 9 1 38 4 9 0 10 6 1 0 3 3 3 8 1 3 2 5 6 3 2 3 4 0 0 1 1 4 2 7 2 0 6 2 1 6 1 2 0 2 17 2 1 7 21 1 1 0

Economic Impact ... Public Safety and Other Spending Total Economic and Employment Impacts of Public Safety and Other Induced Spending Table 16 presents the total economic and employment impacts of induced public safety spending in 2015 in all 50 states. The total economic impact is estimated to be $23,596,485 with total new job creation of 247. The largest economic and employment impacts of induced public safety spending is in the state of California with a total economic impact of approximately $4,129,233 and creation of 43 new jobs. Following California are the states of Washington, Texas, Florida and Arizona. The order of job creation was similar to economic impact. The state with least economic and employment impacts is Wyoming with $8,144 and no new jobs created. The average economic and employment impacts of induced public safety spending per state are an estimated $471,930 and creation of five jobs. The standard deviation of economic and employment impacts of induced public safety spending are approximately $692,916 and creation of seven new jobs. The large standard deviation indicates the wide variability of economic and employment impacts among states.

Table 16: 2015 Induced Economic & Employment Impacts of Public Safety Spending Direct Spending

Parts $598,993 $39,328 $1,107,373 $164,937 $4,206,755 $476,756 $1,065,581 $35,825 $1,281,078 $763,853 $66,930 $59,977 $422,434 $429,854 $333,844 $956,184 $184,990 $444,770 $221,438 $684,342 $782,687 $389,592 $293,271 $338,695 $532,064 $29,755 $51,909 $80,679 $181,125 $537,019 $210,335 $892,160 $314,932 $29,158 $730,440 $219,233 $169,218 $809,899 $87,709 $204,784 $19,664 $217,936 $2,277,187 $298,044 $73,986 $958,312 $2,436,573 $96,737 $181,644 $10,013 $27,000,000

Taxes

Total

State Induced Multipliers

Induced Economic Impact

$507,249 $32,059 $968,568 $138,166 $4,129,233 $400,119 $928,716 $29,674 $1,092,119 $654,864 $55,759 $49,988 $352,225 $358,560 $274,593 $844,942 $154,164 $368,404 $184,175 $579,648 $666,883 $324,176 $245,158 $279,569 $449,691 $24,699 $42,955 $65,914 $147,556 $454,427 $173,995 $764,579 $263,707 $23,934 $619,646 $182,977 $139,720 $678,820 $72,779 $170,323 $16,072 $194,036 $1,877,161 $246,792 $61,664 $799,624 $2,266,419 $80,535 $151,304 $8,144 $23,596,485 $471,930 $692,916

Induced Employment Impact 5 0 10 1 43 4 10 0 11 7 1 1 4 4 3 9 2 4 2 6 7 3 3 3 5 0 0 1 2 5 2 8 3 0 6 2 1 7 1 2 0 2 20 3 1 8 24 1 2 0 247

5 7

$4,129,233

$8,144

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Impacts of UAS Development Total Economic and Employment Impacts of UAS Development in the Top Five States A comparison of the total economic and job creation impacts of UAS integration in the U.S. in the top five states is presented in Table 17. The orders of output and job multipliers are consistent with the order of the states in terms of direct spending. California is the number one state with the highest direct spending of $179,892,071 and the highest direct employment of 2,108, which resulted in the highest contribution to total economic impact of approximately $398,335,013 and total new job creation impact of approximately 4,097. In addition, California has the highest multipliers for job and output creation. Figure 2 graphically shows the total economic and job creation impacts of the top five states in the U.S. Table 17: 2015 Total Economic and Employment Impacts of UAS Development in the Top Five States Direct spending

Total Economic impact

Output multiplier

S tate

Direct jobs

Total job Creation Impact

California

2108

4,097

1.94

179,892,071

398,335,013

2.21

Washington

1157

2,249

1.94

102,877,509

218,614,707

2.13

Texas

958

1,863

1.94

96,147,891

181,084,937

1.88

Florida

557

1,084

1.94

54,089,966

105,351,026

1.95

Arizona

494

961

1.94

47,186,634

93,429,535

1.98

Job multiplier

Total Economic and Employment Impacts of UAS Development in the United States From 2015-2025 UAS integration into the NAS will have tremendous economic and job creation impacts on the aerospace industry and aid in driving economic development in many states across the country. In todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic environment, job creation will continue to be extremely important for the aerospace industry and the U.S. economy. Note that the economic impact of UAS integration will not stop with the primary UAS market. Similar to other industries, job growth will stretch into many additional sectors, and the economic growth in the AUVSI Economic Report 2013

aerospace industry will support the growth in many other businesses across multiple U.S. industries, including the hospitality and entertainment industries. The total direct spending in UAS development and the total economic and employment impacts are expected to increase significantly in the next 11 years from 2015 through 2025, as seen in Table 18. The expected total direct spending in UAS development in 2015 is an estimated $1,153,370,225. This amount is expected to increase by 100% in 2016 to approximately $2,306,740,450. In 2017, total direct spending is expected to increase by 50% to an estimated $3,460,110,675. This rate of growth is expected to decrease in 2018 to approximately 5% with total spending of $3,633,116,209 and to level off at 5% between 2019 and 2025, with total spending in 2025 of 5,112,159,353. Table 18: Direct Spending and Employment in The U.S. from 2015-2025 Year

Total Direct Spending

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,153,370,225 2,306,740,450 3,460,110,675 3,633,116,209 3,814,772,019 4,005,510,620 4,205,786,151 4,416,075,459 4,636,879,232 4,868,723,193 5,112,159,353

Total Direct Employment 11,400 22,800 34,200 35,910 37,706 39,591 41,570 43,649 45,831 48,123 50,529

Percent Change Over Previous Year 100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

The expected total economic and employment impacts in the U.S. for UAS integration for the 11-year period from 2015 through 2025 is shown in Table 19. In 2015, the expected total economic and employment impacts are estimated to be $2,276,186,016 with creation of 23,413 jobs. These amounts are expected to increase by 100% in 2016 (from 2015) to approximately $4,552,372,033 in economic impact and job creation of 46,826. In 2017, the economic and employment impacts are expected to increase by approximately 50% to $6,828,558,049 and 70,240 jobs. This rate of growth is expected to decrease in 2018 to approximately 5% and level off at 5% through 2025. By 2025, the expected total economic impact is estimated to be $10,088,890,263 and total employment impact 103,776. Table 19: Economic & Employment Impacts in The U.S. from 2015-2025 Total Economic Total Employment Impact Impact

Year

Total Direct Spending

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

$ 1,153,370,225 $ 2,276,186,016 $ 2,306,740,450 $ 4,552,372,033 $ 3,460,110,675 $ 6,828,558,049 $ 3,633,116,209 $ 7,169,985,952 $ 3,814,772,019 $ 7,528,485,249 $ 4,005,510,620 $ 7,904,909,512 $ 4,205,786,151 $ 8,300,154,987 $ 4,416,075,459 $ 8,715,162,737 $ 4,636,879,232 $ 9,150,920,874 $ 4,868,723,193 $ 9,608,466,917 $ 5,112,159,353 $10,088,890,263

23,413 46,826 70,240 73,752 77,439 81,311 85,377 89,645 94,128 98,834 103,776

Percent Change Over Previous Year 100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Figure 3 graphically compares total spending and economic impacts from 2015 to 2025. There are high growth rates for both spending and total economic impact in the first three years (2015-2017) but both spending and total economic impact growth are expected to decrease to 5% in 2018 and level off at 5% through 2025.

impact by agriculture, $3.2 billion by public safety and $3.2 billion by other activities; • The manufacturing jobs created will be high paying ($40,000) and require technical baccalaureate degrees; and • In the first three years, U.S. airspace integration will create more than 34,000 manufacturing jobs and more than 70,000 new jobs. This study demonstrates the significant contribution of UAS integration to the economic growth and job creation in the aerospace industry and to the social and economic progress of the citizens in the United States.

Direct employment and total employment impact from 2015 to 2025 are compared in Figure 4. There are high growth rates for both direct and total employment impacts in the first three years (20152017) to approximately 100% and 50% in 2016 and 2017, respectively. The growth rate of both direct employment and total employment impacts are expected to decrease to 5% in 2018 and level off at 5% through 2025.

Conclusion

UAS integration into the NAS is expected to have enormous economic and job creation impacts in the United States. These impacts have been demonstrated to be due to direct, indirect and induced effects of total spending in UAS development. The results of these economic impacts are as follows: During the 11-year period 2015-2025: • UAS integration is expected to contribute $82.1 billion to the nation’s economy by agriculture, public safety and other activities; • 103,776 new jobs will be created, with 844,741 job years worked over the time period; • UAS integration is expected to contribute $75.6 billion economic 20

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Appendix A

Sato, Akira (2011, October). Civil UAV Applications in Japan and Related Safety & Certification. Presented at the 1st Annual Agricultural UAS Conference: Precision Agriculture, Atlanta, GA.

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Appendix B State Level Detailed Economic Impact

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Alabama Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

259 518 777 816 856 899 944 991 1041 1093 1148

503 1007 1510 1585 1665 1748 1835 1927 2023 2125 2231

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$25.70 $51.39 $77.09 $80.94 $84.99 $89.24 $93.70 $98.38 $103.30 $108.47 $113.89

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$48.93 $97.86 $146.80 $154.14 $161.84 $169.93 $178.43 $187.35 $196.72 $206.56 $216.88

Alaska Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$404.65 $809.31 $1,213.96 $1,274.66 $1,338.39 $1,405.31 $1,475.58 $1,549.35 $1,626.82 $1,708.16 $1,793.57

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

16 33 49 52 54 57 60 63 66 69 73

Arizona Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

494 989 1483 1557 1635 1717 1803 1893 1988 2087 2191

961 1922 2883 3027 3179 3338 3504 3680 3864 4057 4260

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$47.19 $94.37 $141.56 $148.64 $156.07 $163.87 $172.07 $180.67 $189.70 $199.19 $209.15

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$93.43 $186.86 $280.29 $294.30 $309.02 $324.47 $340.69 $357.73 $375.61 $394.39 $414.11

32 64 95 100 105 110 116 122 128 134 141

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$1.66 $3.32 $4.98 $5.23 $5.49 $5.77 $6.06 $6.36 $6.68 $7.01 $7.36

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$3.09 $6.18 $9.28 $9.74 $10.23 $10.74 $11.28 $11.84 $12.43 $13.05 $13.71

Total State Taxes ($K)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Arkansas Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$430.90 $861.80 $1,292.70 $1,357.34 $1,425.20 $1,496.46 $1,571.29 $1,649.85 $1,732.34 $1,818.96 $1,909.91

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

71 141 212 222 233 245 257 270 284 298 313

137 274 411 432 453 476 500 525 551 579 608

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$7.12 $14.24 $21.36 $22.43 $23.55 $24.73 $25.96 $27.26 $28.62 $30.06 $31.56

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$13.33 $26.65 $39.98 $41.98 $44.08 $46.28 $48.60 $51.03 $53.58 $56.26 $59.07

Total State Taxes ($K)

$155.99 $311.99 $467.98 $491.38 $515.95 $541.75 $568.83 $597.28 $627.14 $658.50 $691.42

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

California Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

2108 4216 6324 6640 6972 7321 7687 8071 8475 8898 9343

4097 8195 12292 12907 13552 14230 14941 15688 16472 17296 18161

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$179.89 $359.78 $539.68 $566.66 $594.99 $624.74 $655.98 $688.78 $723.22 $759.38 $797.35

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$398.34 $796.67 $1,195.01 $1,254.76 $1,317.49 $1,383.37 $1,452.54 $1,525.16 $1,601.42 $1,681.49 $1,765.57

Total State Taxes ($K)

$2,273.52 $4,547.03 $6,820.55 $7,161.58 $7,519.66 $7,895.64 $8,290.42 $8,704.95 $9,140.19 $9,597.20 $10,077.06

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Colorado Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

204 408 613 643 675 709 745 782 821 862 905

Connecticut Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

474 948 1422 1493 1568 1646 1729 1815 1906 2001 2101

921 1843 2764 2903 3048 3200 3360 3528 3705 3890 4084

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$45.71 $91.42 $137.13 $143.99 $151.19 $158.75 $166.69 $175.02 $183.77 $192.96 $202.61

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$89.58 $179.17 $268.75 $282.19 $296.30 $311.12 $326.67 $343.01 $360.16 $378.16 $397.07

Total Direct Spending ($M)

397 794 1191 1251 1313 1379 1448 1520 1596 1676 1760

$20.43 $40.86 $61.28 $64.35 $67.57 $70.94 $74.49 $78.22 $82.13 $86.23 $90.54

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$38.59 $77.19 $115.78 $121.57 $127.65 $134.03 $140.74 $147.77 $155.16 $162.92 $171.07

Total State Taxes ($K)

$298.24 $596.48 $894.73 $939.46 $986.43 $1,035.76 $1,087.54 $1,141.92 $1,199.02 $1,258.97 $1,321.92

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Delaware Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$719.86 $1,439.72 $2,159.58 $2,267.56 $2,380.93 $2,499.98 $2,624.98 $2,756.23 $2,894.04 $3,038.74 $3,190.68

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

15 30 45 48 50 53 55 58 61 64 67

Total Direct Spending ($M)

29 59 88 93 97 102 107 113 118 124 131

$1.54 $3.08 $4.62 $4.85 $5.09 $5.35 $5.61 $5.89 $6.19 $6.50 $6.82

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$2.86 $5.73 $8.59 $9.02 $9.47 $9.94 $10.44 $10.96 $11.51 $12.08 $12.69

Total State Taxes ($K)

$26.86 $53.73 $80.59 $84.62 $88.85 $93.30 $97.96 $102.86 $108.00 $113.40 $119.07

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Florida Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

557 1115 1672 1756 1844 1936 2033 2135 2241 2353 2471

1084 2167 3251 3414 3584 3763 3952 4149 4357 4574 4803

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$54.09 $108.18 $162.27 $170.38 $178.90 $187.85 $197.24 $207.10 $217.46 $228.33 $239.75

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$105.35 $210.70 $316.05 $331.86 $348.45 $365.87 $384.16 $403.37 $423.54 $444.72 $466.95

Georgia Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

334 668 1003 1053 1106 1161 1219 1280 1344 1411 1481

650 1299 1949 2047 2149 2256 2369 2488 2612 2743 2880

Hawaii Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

28 57 85 90 94 99 104 109 114 120 126

55 111 166 174 183 192 202 212 222 234 245

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$2.89 $5.78 $8.67 $9.11 $9.56 $10.04 $10.54 $11.07 $11.62 $12.20 $12.81

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$5.38 $10.76 $16.14 $16.94 $17.79 $18.68 $19.61 $20.59 $21.62 $22.70 $23.84

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$32.87 $65.74 $98.61 $103.54 $108.72 $114.16 $119.86 $125.86 $132.15 $138.76 $145.70

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$63.16 $126.33 $189.49 $198.97 $208.92 $219.36 $230.33 $241.85 $253.94 $266.64 $279.97

Total State Taxes ($K)

$619.23 $1,238.46 $1,857.69 $1,950.57 $2,048.10 $2,150.51 $2,258.03 $2,370.94 $2,489.48 $2,613.96 $2,744.65

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Idaho Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$65.11 $130.22 $195.33 $205.09 $215.35 $226.12 $237.42 $249.29 $261.76 $274.84 $288.59

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

26 51 77 80 84 89 93 98 103 108 113

50 99 149 156 164 172 181 190 199 209 220

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$2.59 $5.18 $7.78 $8.17 $8.57 $9.00 $9.45 $9.93 $10.42 $10.94 $11.49

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$4.82 $9.64 $14.47 $15.19 $15.95 $16.75 $17.58 $18.46 $19.39 $20.36 $21.37

Total State Taxes ($K)

$59.97 $119.93 $179.90 $188.89 $198.34 $208.26 $218.67 $229.60 $241.08 $253.14 $265.79

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Illinois Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

180 360 539 566 595 624 656 688 723 759 797

350 699 1049 1101 1156 1214 1274 1338 1405 1475 1549

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$18.12 $36.24 $54.36 $57.08 $59.94 $62.93 $66.08 $69.38 $72.85 $76.50 $80.32

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$33.98 $67.96 $101.93 $107.03 $112.38 $118.00 $123.90 $130.10 $136.60 $143.43 $150.60

Indiana Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$285.38 $570.76 $856.13 $898.94 $943.89 $991.08 $1,040.64 $1,092.67 $1,147.30 $1,204.67 $1,264.90

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

183 366 549 576 605 636 667 701 736 773 811

356 711 1067 1121 1177 1235 1297 1362 1430 1502 1577

Iowa Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

140 280 420 441 464 487 511 537 563 592 621

272 545 817 858 901 946 994 1043 1095 1150 1208

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$14.25 $28.50 $42.75 $44.88 $47.13 $49.48 $51.96 $54.56 $57.28 $60.15 $63.16

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$26.49 $52.97 $79.46 $83.44 $87.61 $91.99 $96.59 $101.42 $106.49 $111.81 $117.40

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$18.35 $36.69 $55.04 $57.79 $60.68 $63.72 $66.90 $70.25 $73.76 $77.45 $81.32

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$34.58 $69.17 $103.75 $108.94 $114.39 $120.11 $126.11 $132.42 $139.04 $145.99 $153.29

Total State Taxes ($K)

$197.47 $394.93 $592.40 $622.02 $653.12 $685.77 $720.06 $756.06 $793.87 $833.56 $875.24

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Kansas Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$153.36 $306.72 $460.08 $483.08 $507.24 $532.60 $559.23 $587.19 $616.55 $647.38 $679.75

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

431 863 1294 1359 1426 1498 1573 1651 1734 1821 1912

838 1677 2515 2641 2773 2911 3057 3210 3370 3539 3716

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$41.18 $82.36 $123.54 $129.72 $136.20 $143.01 $150.16 $157.67 $165.55 $173.83 $182.52

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$81.50 $163.01 $244.51 $256.73 $269.57 $283.05 $297.20 $312.06 $327.66 $344.05 $361.25

Total State Taxes ($K)

$807.44 $1,614.89 $2,422.33 $2,543.45 $2,670.62 $2,804.15 $2,944.36 $3,091.58 $3,246.16 $3,408.47 $3,578.89

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Kentucky Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

79 157 236 248 260 273 287 301 316 332 349

153 306 459 482 506 531 558 586 615 646 678

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$7.96 $15.92 $23.88 $25.08 $26.33 $27.65 $29.03 $30.48 $32.00 $33.60 $35.28

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$14.87 $29.74 $44.61 $46.84 $49.19 $51.65 $54.23 $56.94 $59.79 $62.78 $65.92

Louisiana Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$149.97 $299.93 $449.90 $472.39 $496.01 $520.81 $546.85 $574.19 $602.90 $633.05 $664.70

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

188 376 564 592 622 653 686 720 756 794 833

Maine Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

94 188 282 296 311 326 343 360 378 397 417

183 365 548 576 604 635 666 700 735 771 810

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$9.56 $19.12 $28.68 $30.11 $31.62 $33.20 $34.86 $36.60 $38.43 $40.35 $42.37

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$17.76 $35.53 $53.29 $55.96 $58.76 $61.69 $64.78 $68.02 $71.42 $74.99 $78.74

366 731 1097 1151 1209 1269 1333 1400 1470 1543 1620

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$19.02 $38.04 $57.06 $59.91 $62.91 $66.05 $69.36 $72.82 $76.46 $80.29 $84.30

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$35.54 $71.07 $106.61 $111.94 $117.54 $123.41 $129.58 $136.06 $142.87 $150.01 $157.51

Total State Taxes ($K)

$240.37 $480.75 $721.12 $757.18 $795.04 $834.79 $876.53 $920.35 $966.37 $1,014.69 $1,065.42

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Maryland Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$209.43 $418.86 $628.29 $659.71 $692.69 $727.33 $763.70 $801.88 $841.97 $884.07 $928.28

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

296 592 888 932 979 1028 1079 1133 1190 1249 1311

575 1150 1725 1812 1902 1997 2097 2202 2312 2428 2549

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$29.33 $58.67 $88.00 $92.40 $97.02 $101.87 $106.97 $112.31 $117.93 $123.83 $130.02

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$55.91 $111.83 $167.74 $176.13 $184.93 $194.18 $203.89 $214.08 $224.79 $236.02 $247.83

Total State Taxes ($K)

$439.20 $878.39 $1,317.59 $1,383.46 $1,452.64 $1,525.27 $1,601.53 $1,681.61 $1,765.69 $1,853.98 $1,946.67

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Massachusetts Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

340 681 1021 1072 1126 1182 1241 1303 1369 1437 1509

662 1323 1985 2084 2189 2298 2413 2534 2660 2793 2933

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$33.61 $67.21 $100.82 $105.86 $111.16 $116.71 $122.55 $128.68 $135.11 $141.87 $148.96

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$64.33 $128.66 $192.99 $202.64 $212.77 $223.41 $234.58 $246.31 $258.63 $271.56 $285.14

Michigan Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$560.47 $1,120.95 $1,681.42 $1,765.49 $1,853.76 $1,946.45 $2,043.78 $2,145.96 $2,253.26 $2,365.93 $2,484.22

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

165 331 496 521 547 575 603 633 665 698 733

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

125 250 375 394 414 435 456 479 503 528 555

243 487 730 766 805 845 887 931 978 1027 1078

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$12.66 $25.32 $37.99 $39.88 $41.88 $43.97 $46.17 $48.48 $50.90 $53.45 $56.12

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$23.65 $47.30 $70.95 $74.49 $78.22 $82.13 $86.24 $90.55 $95.07 $99.83 $104.82

$16.68 $33.36 $50.04 $52.54 $55.16 $57.92 $60.82 $63.86 $67.05 $70.40 $73.92

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$31.27 $62.54 $93.81 $98.50 $103.42 $108.59 $114.02 $119.72 $125.71 $131.99 $138.59

Total State Taxes ($K)

$228.98 $457.95 $686.93 $721.28 $757.34 $795.21 $834.97 $876.71 $920.55 $966.58 $1,014.91

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Mississippi Economic Impact

Minnesota Economic Impact Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

322 643 965 1013 1064 1117 1173 1231 1293 1358 1426

Total Direct Spending ($M)

Total State Taxes ($K)

$279.35 $558.70 $838.05 $879.95 $923.95 $970.15 $1,018.66 $1,069.59 $1,123.07 $1,179.22 $1,238.18

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

143 285 428 450 472 496 520 546 574 602 633

Total Direct Spending ($M)

277 555 832 874 918 963 1012 1062 1115 1171 1230

$14.48 $28.97 $43.45 $45.62 $47.90 $50.30 $52.81 $55.46 $58.23 $61.14 $64.20

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$26.97 $53.94 $80.91 $84.95 $89.20 $93.66 $98.35 $103.26 $108.43 $113.85 $119.54

Total State Taxes ($K)

$183.05 $366.09 $549.14 $576.59 $605.42 $635.69 $667.48 $700.85 $735.90 $772.69 $811.33

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Montana Economic Impact

Missouri Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

230 459 689 723 759 797 837 879 923 969 1017

446 892 1338 1405 1476 1549 1627 1708 1794 1883 1978

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$22.75 $45.50 $68.26 $71.67 $75.25 $79.02 $82.97 $87.12 $91.47 $96.05 $100.85

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$43.38 $86.75 $130.13 $136.63 $143.46 $150.64 $158.17 $166.08 $174.38 $183.10 $192.26

Total State Taxes ($K)

$287.55 $575.10 $862.65 $905.79 $951.07 $998.63 $1,048.56 $1,100.99 $1,156.04 $1,213.84 $1,274.53

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

13 25 38 40 42 44 46 48 51 53 56

25 49 74 77 81 85 89 94 99 103 109

Nebraska Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

22 44 66 69 73 76 80 84 88 93 97

43 85 128 134 141 148 155 163 171 180 189

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$2.23 $4.46 $6.68 $7.02 $7.37 $7.74 $8.12 $8.53 $8.96 $9.40 $9.87

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$4.14 $8.29 $12.43 $13.05 $13.70 $14.39 $15.11 $15.86 $16.66 $17.49 $18.37

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$1.28 $2.56 $3.84 $4.04 $4.24 $4.45 $4.67 $4.91 $5.15 $5.41 $5.68

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$2.38 $4.76 $7.15 $7.50 $7.88 $8.27 $8.69 $9.12 $9.58 $10.06 $10.56

Total State Taxes ($K)

$25.33 $50.66 $75.98 $79.78 $83.77 $87.96 $92.36 $96.98 $101.82 $106.92 $112.26

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Nevada Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$35.91 $71.82 $107.73 $113.11 $118.77 $124.71 $130.94 $137.49 $144.37 $151.58 $159.16

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

34 67 101 106 111 117 123 129 135 142 149

65 131 196 206 216 227 238 250 263 276 290

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$3.41 $6.81 $10.22 $10.73 $11.27 $11.83 $12.42 $13.04 $13.69 $14.38 $15.10

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$6.36 $12.72 $19.08 $20.03 $21.03 $22.08 $23.19 $24.35 $25.56 $26.84 $28.18

Total State Taxes ($K)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

New Hampshire Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

75 151 226 237 249 262 275 288 303 318 334

146 293 439 461 484 508 534 561 589 618 649

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$7.65 $15.29 $22.94 $24.09 $25.29 $26.56 $27.89 $29.28 $30.75 $32.28 $33.90

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$14.23 $28.47 $42.70 $44.84 $47.08 $49.43 $51.90 $54.50 $57.22 $60.08 $63.09

New Jersey Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

232 464 696 731 767 806 846 888 933 979 1028

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

89 178 266 280 294 308 324 340 357 375 394

173 345 518 544 571 600 630 661 694 729 765

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$9.00 $18.01 $27.01 $28.36 $29.78 $31.27 $32.83 $34.47 $36.19 $38.00 $39.90

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$16.78 $33.57 $50.35 $52.87 $55.51 $58.29 $61.20 $64.26 $67.47 $70.85 $74.39

$23.21 $46.43 $69.64 $73.13 $76.78 $80.62 $84.65 $88.89 $93.33 $98.00 $102.90

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$43.84 $87.67 $131.51 $138.08 $144.99 $152.24 $159.85 $167.84 $176.23 $185.05 $194.30

Total State Taxes ($K)

$540.55 $1,081.10 $1,621.65 $1,702.74 $1,787.87 $1,877.27 $1,971.13 $2,069.69 $2,173.17 $2,281.83 $2,395.92

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

New York Economic Impact

New Mexico Economic Impact Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

451 902 1353 1420 1491 1566 1644 1726 1813 1903 1999

Total Direct Spending ($M)

Total State Taxes ($K)

$122.20 $244.40 $366.60 $384.93 $404.18 $424.39 $445.60 $467.89 $491.28 $515.84 $541.64

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

390 781 1171 1229 1291 1355 1423 1494 1569 1648 1730

759 1517 2276 2390 2509 2635 2766 2905 3050 3203 3363

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$38.45 $76.89 $115.34 $121.11 $127.16 $133.52 $140.20 $147.21 $154.57 $162.29 $170.41

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$73.76 $147.51 $221.27 $232.33 $243.95 $256.14 $268.95 $282.40 $296.52 $311.35 $326.91

Total State Taxes ($K)

$777.49 $1,554.98 $2,332.46 $2,449.09 $2,571.54 $2,700.12 $2,835.12 $2,976.88 $3,125.73 $3,282.01 $3,446.11

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

North Dakota Economic Impact

North Carolina Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

135 269 404 424 445 467 491 515 541 568 597

262 523 785 824 865 909 954 1002 1052 1105 1160

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$13.59 $27.19 $40.78 $42.82 $44.97 $47.21 $49.57 $52.05 $54.66 $57.39 $60.26

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$25.44 $50.88 $76.31 $80.13 $84.13 $88.34 $92.76 $97.40 $102.27 $107.38 $112.75

Total State Taxes ($K)

$297.86 $595.71 $893.57 $938.25 $985.16 $1,034.42 $1,086.14 $1,140.44 $1,197.47 $1,257.34 $1,320.21

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

12 24 37 38 40 42 45 47 49 52 54

Ohio Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

316 633 949 996 1046 1098 1153 1211 1272 1335 1402

615 1230 1844 1937 2033 2135 2242 2354 2472 2595 2725

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$31.25 $62.49 $93.74 $98.42 $103.34 $108.51 $113.94 $119.63 $125.62 $131.90 $138.49

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$59.77 $119.54 $179.31 $188.27 $197.69 $207.57 $217.95 $228.85 $240.29 $252.30 $264.92

24 47 71 75 79 82 87 91 95 100 105

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$1.24 $2.48 $3.73 $3.91 $4.11 $4.31 $4.53 $4.76 $4.99 $5.24 $5.51

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$2.31 $4.62 $6.93 $7.27 $7.64 $8.02 $8.42 $8.84 $9.28 $9.75 $10.23

Total State Taxes ($K)

$11.11 $22.22 $33.33 $35.00 $36.75 $38.58 $40.51 $42.54 $44.66 $46.90 $49.24

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Oklahoma Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$404.63 $809.26 $1,213.89 $1,274.59 $1,338.32 $1,405.23 $1,475.50 $1,549.27 $1,626.73 $1,708.07 $1,793.47

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

93 187 280 294 309 324 341 358 375 394 414

182 363 545 572 600 631 662 695 730 766 805

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$9.41 $18.82 $28.24 $29.65 $31.13 $32.69 $34.32 $36.04 $37.84 $39.73 $41.72

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$17.65 $35.30 $52.95 $55.60 $58.38 $61.30 $64.36 $67.58 $70.96 $74.51 $78.23

Total State Taxes ($K)

$155.51 $311.02 $466.53 $489.85 $514.35 $540.06 $567.07 $595.42 $625.19 $656.45 $689.27

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Oregon Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

71 143 214 225 236 248 260 273 287 301 316

139 277 416 437 459 481 506 531 557 585 614

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$7.21 $14.43 $21.64 $22.72 $23.86 $25.05 $26.30 $27.62 $29.00 $30.45 $31.97

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$13.48 $26.96 $40.43 $42.46 $44.58 $46.81 $49.15 $51.61 $54.19 $56.90 $59.74

Pennsylvania Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$68.59 $137.18 $205.77 $216.06 $226.86 $238.20 $250.11 $262.62 $275.75 $289.54 $304.01

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

347 693 1040 1092 1146 1203 1264 1327 1393 1463 1536

Rhode Island Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

37 74 111 117 123 129 135 142 149 157 165

72 144 217 227 239 251 263 276 290 305 320

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$3.77 $7.53 $11.30 $11.86 $12.46 $13.08 $13.73 $14.42 $15.14 $15.90 $16.69

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$7.02 $14.04 $21.06 $22.11 $23.22 $24.38 $25.60 $26.88 $28.22 $29.63 $31.12

674 1347 2021 2122 2228 2339 2456 2579 2708 2843 2986

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$34.53 $69.06 $103.60 $108.77 $114.21 $119.92 $125.92 $132.22 $138.83 $145.77 $153.06

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$65.49 $130.97 $196.46 $206.28 $216.59 $227.42 $238.80 $250.74 $263.27 $276.44 $290.26

Total State Taxes ($K)

$335.94 $671.88 $1,007.82 $1,058.21 $1,111.12 $1,166.67 $1,225.01 $1,286.26 $1,350.57 $1,418.10 $1,489.00

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

South Carolina Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$63.33 $126.65 $189.98 $199.48 $209.45 $219.92 $230.92 $242.46 $254.59 $267.32 $280.68

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

87 174 261 274 288 302 317 333 350 367 385

Total Direct Spending ($M)

169 338 507 532 559 587 616 647 679 713 749

$8.84 $17.68 $26.52 $27.85 $29.24 $30.70 $32.24 $33.85 $35.54 $37.32 $39.18

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$16.43 $32.86 $49.29 $51.75 $54.34 $57.06 $59.91 $62.91 $66.05 $69.35 $72.82

Total State Taxes ($K)

$193.68 $387.36 $581.04 $610.09 $640.60 $672.63 $706.26 $741.57 $778.65 $817.58 $858.46

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

South Dakota Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

8 16 25 26 27 28 30 31 33 35 36

16 32 48 50 53 55 58 61 64 67 71

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$0.83 $1.66 $2.49 $2.62 $2.75 $2.88 $3.03 $3.18 $3.34 $3.50 $3.68

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$1.55 $3.10 $4.65 $4.88 $5.13 $5.38 $5.65 $5.94 $6.23 $6.54 $6.87

Tennessee Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

99 198 297 312 328 344 361 379 398 418 439

193 385 578 606 637 669 702 737 774 813 853

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

958 1916 2875 3018 3169 3328 3494 3669 3852 4045 4247

1863 3725 5588 5867 6161 6469 6792 7132 7488 7863 8256

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$96.15 $192.30 $288.44 $302.87 $318.01 $333.91 $350.61 $368.14 $386.54 $405.87 $426.16

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$181.08 $362.17 $543.25 $570.42 $598.94 $628.89 $660.33 $693.35 $728.01 $764.41 $802.63

$9.20 $18.40 $27.61 $28.99 $30.43 $31.96 $33.55 $35.23 $36.99 $38.84 $40.79

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$18.72 $37.44 $56.15 $58.96 $61.91 $65.01 $68.26 $71.67 $75.25 $79.02 $82.97

Total State Taxes ($K)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Utah Economic Impact

Texas Economic Impact Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

Total Direct Spending ($M)

Total State Taxes ($K)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

126 252 378 397 417 437 459 482 506 532 558

245 490 735 771 810 850 893 938 984 1034 1085

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$12.79 $25.57 $38.36 $40.27 $42.29 $44.40 $46.62 $48.95 $51.40 $53.97 $56.67

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$23.81 $47.61 $71.42 $74.99 $78.74 $82.67 $86.81 $91.15 $95.70 $100.49 $105.51

Total State Taxes ($K)

$201.35 $402.69 $604.04 $634.24 $665.95 $699.25 $734.21 $770.92 $809.47 $849.94 $892.44

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Vermont Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

31 63 94 99 104 109 115 121 127 133 140

61 122 184 193 202 212 223 234 246 258 271

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$3.20 $6.40 $9.61 $10.09 $10.59 $11.12 $11.68 $12.26 $12.87 $13.52 $14.19

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$5.95 $11.90 $17.84 $18.74 $19.67 $20.66 $21.69 $22.78 $23.91 $25.11 $26.37

Virginia Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$77.97 $155.94 $233.91 $245.61 $257.89 $270.78 $284.32 $298.54 $313.47 $329.14 $345.60

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

408 816 1225 1286 1350 1418 1489 1563 1641 1723 1809

Washington Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

1157 2314 3470 3644 3826 4017 4218 4429 4651 4883 5127

2249 4497 6746 7083 7438 7809 8200 8610 9040 9492 9967

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$102.88 $205.76 $308.63 $324.06 $340.27 $357.28 $375.14 $393.90 $413.60 $434.28 $455.99

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$218.61 $437.23 $655.84 $688.64 $723.07 $759.22 $797.18 $837.04 $878.89 $922.84 $968.98

793 1587 2380 2499 2624 2756 2893 3038 3190 3349 3517

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$41.21 $82.41 $123.62 $129.80 $136.29 $143.11 $150.26 $157.77 $165.66 $173.95 $182.64

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$77.14 $154.28 $231.42 $242.99 $255.14 $267.89 $281.29 $295.35 $310.12 $325.63 $341.91

Total State Taxes ($K)

$744.50 $1,489.00 $2,233.51 $2,345.18 $2,462.44 $2,585.56 $2,714.84 $2,850.58 $2,993.11 $3,142.77 $3,299.90

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

West Virginia Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

41 82 123 129 136 143 150 157 165 174 182

Total Direct Spending ($M)

80 160 240 252 264 278 291 306 321 337 354

$4.16 $8.33 $12.49 $13.11 $13.77 $14.46 $15.18 $15.94 $16.74 $17.57 $18.45

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$7.77 $15.54 $23.31 $24.47 $25.70 $26.98 $28.33 $29.75 $31.23 $32.79 $34.43

Total State Taxes ($K)

$78.42 $156.84 $235.26 $247.03 $259.38 $272.35 $285.96 $300.26 $315.28 $331.04 $347.59

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Wisconsin Economic Impact Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

77 154 232 243 255 268 282 296 310 326 342

150 300 450 473 497 521 547 575 604 634 665

Total Direct Spending ($M)

$7.83 $15.66 $23.49 $24.66 $25.89 $27.19 $28.55 $29.98 $31.47 $33.05 $34.70

Total Economic Impact ($M)

Wyoming Economic Impact Total State Taxes ($K)

$14.59 $29.19 $43.78 $45.97 $48.27 $50.69 $53.22 $55.88 $58.67 $61.61 $64.69

$159.52 $319.05 $478.57 $502.50 $527.62 $554.01 $581.71 $610.79 $641.33 $673.40 $707.07

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Year

Total Direct Employment Employment Impact

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

4 8 12 13 14 14 15 16 17 18 18

8 16 24 25 27 28 29 31 32 34 36

Total Direct Spending ($M)

Total Economic Impact ($M)

$0.42 $0.85 $1.27 $1.33 $1.40 $1.47 $1.54 $1.62 $1.70 $1.78 $1.87

** Some states have zero tax revenue, because those states do not have a state income tax.

TO READ THE FULL REPORT ONLINE, SCAN THIS QR CODE OR VISIT

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

http://www.auvsi.org/econreport

$0.79 $1.57 $2.36 $2.47 $2.60 $2.73 $2.86 $3.01 $3.16 $3.32 $3.48

Total State Taxes ($K)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Percent Change Over Previous Year

100% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

References

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Anders, GC. 1992. The changing role of the public university in local economic development. Economic Development Review 10. Arik, Murat, and Christian Nsiah. 2004. Measuring the Economic Impact of Middle Tennessee State University. Business and Economic Research Center, Jennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University. A Study of the Economic Impact and Benefits of UC San Diego FY 2006-07. Accessed on January 15, 2011, http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/ economicimpact/pdf/UC-San-Diego-Economic-Impact-ReportJuly-10-2008.pdf Blackwell, Melanie, Steven Cobb, and David Weinberg. 2002. The economic impact of educational institutions: Issues and methodology. Economic Development Quarterly 16, No. 1: 88-95. Bluestone, B. 1993. UMASS/Boston: An Economic Impact Analysis. Boston, MA: John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs, the University of Massachusetts. Constantinides, Efthymios. 2002. The 4S web-marketing mix model. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 1, no. 1: 57-76. Contributing to the Economic Health of Connecticut: The University of Connecticut 2009. Accessed on January 15, 2011, http://www.uconn.edu/pdf/UCONNOMY.pdf. Cornell University Economic Impact on New York State. Accessed on January 15, 2011, http://www.cornell.edu/land-grant/assets/pdfs/ EconomicImpactOnNYS.pdf. Davis, H Craig. 1990. Regional Economic Impact Analysis and Project Evaluation. UBC Press. Davy, J. 1998. Electronic Commerce: Is Going Online the Right Road for Your Company? Managing Office Technology: pp. 20â&#x20AC;&#x201C;23. De Pillis, EG, and LG De Pillis. 2001. The long-term impact of university budget cuts: A mathematical model. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 33, no. 8: 851-876. Economic Impact of Marshall County Hospital on Marshall County, Kentucky. Accessed on Feb 1, 2013, http://www.ca.uky.edu/KRHW/ pubs/04aug_marshall_impact.pdf.

AUVSI Economic Report 2013

Economic Impact Analysis of the University of Southern California Annual Operations FY 2005-2006. Accessed on January 15, 2011, http://www.usc.edu/private/factbook/USC_EconomicImpact_2006.pdf Bangsund, Dean A, F Larry Leistritz, and Randal C Coon. 2010. Economic Impact of the North Dakota University System in 2009. Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University. Evans, Philip, and Thomas S Wurster. 1999. Getting real about virtual commerce. Harvard Business Review 77: 84-98. Futhey, Carol. 2011. Mesa State College Regional Economic Impact 2011. Accessed on January 15, 2011, http://www.coloradomesa. edu/president/documents/2011_ImpactStudy_web.pdf. Hodges, A.W., W. D. Mulkey, & T. J. Stevens. 2006. Economic Impacts of the University of Florida and Affiliated Organization in 2005-06. Accessed on January 15, 2011, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ pdffiles/FE/FE69900.pdf. Investing in Innovation: Harvard Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Impact on The Economy of the Boston Area 2009. Accessed on January 15, 2011, http://community.harvard.edu/files/documents/HarvardSummary_Jan14-09.pdf. Kolter, Philip. 1997. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control. Prentice Hall. Sealey, Peter. 1999. How E-commerce will trump brand management. Harvard Business Review 77: 171-176. Seninger, Stephen F. 1997. Town and Gown: the Economic Partnership between the University of Montana and Missoula. Montana Business Quarterly 35, no. 4. Siegfried, John J, Allen R Sanderson, and Peter McHenry. 2007. The economic impact of colleges and universities. Economics of Education Review 26, no. 5: 546-558. Susman, N. 1990. The role of the technical university in area economic development: A review and appraisal. Economic Development Review 8: 25-29. Users Guide, Analysis Guide, Data Guide IMPLAN Professional Version 2.0. IMPLAN Group Inc.

AUVSI FAST FACTS MISSION The mission of AUVSI is to advance the unmanned systems and robotics community through education, advocacy and leadership. MEMBERS AUVSI represents more than 7,000 individual members and more than 600 corporate members from 60+ allied countries involved in the fields of government, industry and academia. AUVSI members work in the defense, civil and commercial markets. AUVSI ACTIVITIES EVENTS • AUVSI’s Unmanned Systems Conference and Exhibition – More than 8,000 attendees and 600+ exhibitors from more than 40 countries and an average annual growth rate of 20% make this the leading event for the global unmanned systems and robotics marketplace. www.auvsishow.org • AUVSI’s Unmanned Systems Program Review – Providing the latest information on government and industry programs for ground, air and maritime systems, this annual event is one of the most important to the unmanned systems community. This is one event where business happens. • Networking Events – AUVSI hosts meetings and events worldwide, providing education and networking opportunities for key industry leaders, including AUVSI’s Driverless Car Summit. ADVOCACY AUVSI works with its membership to shape policy by advocating on behalf of the unmanned systems industry, monitoring legislation and assessing the impact of the industry. AUVSI plays a key role in addressing critical industry issues, such as National Airspace Access, Frequency Spectrum (GPS), NextGen/SESAR, Coalition Building and First Responder Grants. AUVSI works to influence legislation, including the FAA Reauthorization, Transportation Bill, DOD Reauthorization and Homeland Security Reauthorization.

EDUCATION CAMPAIGN AUVSI is working hard to change the public perception of the unmanned systems and robotics industry through promotion of our members and the endless applications and benefits of their systems. Part of this campaign includes a public website: www.increasinghumanpotential.org. PUBLICATIONS • Print - Unmanned Systems magazine – A monthly magazine providing current industry news, trends and emerging developments; Unmanned Systems: Mission Critical – A quarterly supplement dedicated to unmanned systems sectors that, once tapped, will change the way the world works. • Electronic – AUVSI’s Unmanned Systems eBrief – A weekly electronic newsletter that includes the latest global industry and association news and information; Flight Unmanned – A biweekly electronic publication of the association for AUVSI members. ONLINE CAREER CENTER A leading resource for job-seekers and employers in the unmanned systems and robotics market. KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES Through its knowledge services AUVSI promotes vision, intellectual leadership and education in unmanned systems. AUVSI’s Knowledge Vault provides AUVSI members a one-stop shop for all AUVSI event proceedings and publications. AUVSI FOUNDATION The AUVSI Foundation is a tax-exempt 501(c)3 public charity established to support educational initiatives such as AUVSI’s Youth Education Program, discussion groups, forums and other programs. The foundation has provided more than $500,000 to educational programs worldwide. Each year, the AUVSI Foundation hosts and sponsors competitions to challenge students to design, build and deploy autonomous air, ground and maritime systems.

AUVSI Economic Report 2013